Daniel,

I suggest we use Einstein and Wheeler etc's method. Visualise it fully first, and only then worry about the mathematics.

'Detection', 'channelling', 'processing' 'measurement' and 'observation' are indeed defined in detail including all EM interactions and implications. The orbital angular momentum of spin is the key, as is assigning the correct 'datum' frame for computing (processing) the output's 'speed' and 'frequency' from time and the state information of the modulated wavefunction (essentially wavelength lambda) channelled to the processor.

Now lets ignore commutativity etc, because this is where your principle concluding assumption comes in; That if something is invisible it 'does not exist'. Worth testing. But is it correct? or if not, irrelevant? If we study it I suggest we find 'NO' in both cases! But there is a 'save'.

Lets consider light propagating through another inertial system ('frame'). Is it visible? Of course not. The only light we can ever 'see' is light which has interacted with our own lens. So what do we 'see if we see a light pulse in a light box/clock, ot cloud chamber. If we see anything we see the light emitted by particles in the chamber. A different light!! Now envisage this; If we drive quickly past the chamber, does the apparent propagation speed change? Yes. Does the real propagations speed change. No!! It's just an optical illusion. Shocked?

So what about the light emitted BY the particles. That ALSO propagates at c of course, and when it meets our lens is re-scattered to c in the lens frame. So the lens (and channel) frame is the reference frame for computing speed and thus frequency.

And here is the 'save' for you. When computing frequency for Doppler shifts, if we use a poorly evolved processor we may mistakenly use the 'invisible' lights propagation rest frame (before it meets so is detected by the observers lens). Then we have the total confusion we have now.

But if we use the lambda/lambda formula for Doppler shift between media, as used in astronomy and optics but not in theoretical physics for some reason, then it can all make sense again.

But that also then requires some different assumptions to those that most use, not just you. But it's worth it as ALL can then make sense.

My essay should help explain this quite fundamental re-appraisal needed. Did you understand how the 'optical illusion' worked?

Hi Daniel

Thank you for your reply. I'm glad you had understood my main points. From your replies I could see that you are aware of the actual Newton's view and as you mention you are simply working out the relationalism approach because you think that this approach is more "economical" than Newton's. That's fine, it is nice to explore some roads.

You: Why should they be embedded somewhere? When we open our eyes and observe the universe directly, all we see are particle separations Rij. So why don´t we do physics with this information only?...

As I understood, your argument is that only objects are observable and therefore what mediates between them can be disregarded in the formulation. I wished you had answered my second question, and I'd like to insist on it: what is the physical thing that mediates between bodies? My questions were aimed at make you understand that particles are moving in a substance and are not contained by an empty container. Can you see the epistemological difference between "empty container" and "substance" (Newton's view of space is not to be conceived as an "ethereal container" because aether is a substance and it cannot be a container)?

You: So why don´t we do physics with this information only?...

Because if we reject this substance as the absolute frame of reference we arrive at logical inconsistencies. Theories should be internally consistent and free of paradoxes.

You: Why our mathematical descriptions should depart from the accesible empirical experience?

I gave you the example of the OWSL to make you understand that despite that we do not have experimental access to measure it, we have to assume that in least one system of reference the OWSL MUST BE isotropic. What we measure is actually the two-way speed of light (Nature seems to conspire against us, she doesn't allow us to measure the OWSL). In this sense, the second postulate of SR DEPARTS FROM EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE but despite this, the isotropy of the OWSL has to be ASSUMED because of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY in the theory. Do you get it? This is why an absolute frame has to be assumed to avoid falling into logical contradictions. It is not a matter of redundancy as you put it but of logic. The speed of light is defined relative to that ethereal substance where all bodies are embedded not relative to an "observable" body. Particles not only move relative to one another but also relative to this substance. The example of translation that you mention in your essay is naive because you argue that since the configuration is the same and there is no way of distinguishing one configuration from the other, the background of space is superfluous. No! It is not superfluous because there is something mediating among the bodies. That something is a substance. You may say, that thing is a field... yes, but what is a field made of? Imagine for a moment that we have two charges separated by a distance r. What thing mediates between the charges? The answer is an electrical field. What is the electrical field made of? Energy, matter...? So you have to admit that this field is static and that it can be considered as preferred frame of reference to judge the motion of the charges, do you agree? So, Newton's substance can be seen, in modern terms, as an all pervading field, and all particles are embedded in this field. Particles are the result of exciting this field, particles are in fact excitations of this field. I hope you have understood the distinction.

Finally, with respect to gamma, I see no difference since in your formulation you require a parameter denoting change and in Newton's theory t, plays this role with the same meaning.

Well, I wish I have clarified some points. I'll be looking forward to your comments.

Best Regards

Israel

With respect to the twin paradox (as other paradoxes) is indeed a topic that we should address in a separate post.

Hi Daniel,

Very nice! I have Israel Perez to thank for directing me here.

The question you raise in your title is *very* important, and truly fundamental. Bravo on the choice, and on your careful reasoning.

I like your treatment of the semantic functor, and I want to suggest something that in my opinion shows where Barbour errs in his program to rehabilitate Mach's principle for a complete physical theory:

As you show in fig. 4, the naturally non-commutative relation between process and semantically identical process terminates at y; i.e., all arrows orient on the output of process x ----> y such that the mathematical description alpha ----> Beta becomes part of the process input. In fact, this is exactly how the Hilbert space mathematics of quantum mechanics functions and which justifies the "shut up and calculate" school of thought.

Let's alter the map such that x

    Dear Israel

    "As I understood, your argument is that only objects are observable and therefore what mediates between them can be disregarded in the formulation. I wished you had answered my second question, and I'd like to insist on it: what is the physical thing that mediates between bodies?"

    Why there should be a physical thing that mediates between bodies? If you have never observed it, why do you we feel the necessity to introduce it? The only possible reason would be to solve paradoxes that exist and are otherwise unsolvable, according to you. Any discussion against relational conception of motion should focus there.

    " Can you see the epistemological difference between "empty container" and "substance" (Newton's view of space is not to be conceived as an "ethereal container" because aether is a substance and it cannot be a container)?"

    What substance? In fact, what do you mean by substance? Why have you introduced it? Maybe you could cite the CMB and say that this is the substance which one should identify with absolute space, since it is, indeed, detectable. But even so, the relational conception of motion may be a better description (it leads to GR!) and could reproduce the apparent "absolute space" stage. I have shown an argument by Barbour last year which shows that the existence of a quantum field does not entail the existence of absolute space.

    "Because if we reject this substance as the absolute frame of reference we arrive at logical inconsistencies. Theories should be internally consistent and free of paradoxes."

    This is the central point. You should focus here. And I think we had this discussion last year. As far as I remeber, we have reached a conclusion. I have reasons to believe that there are no inconsistencies.

    "In this sense, the second postulate of SR DEPARTS FROM EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE but despite this, the isotropy of the OWSL has to be ASSUMED because of LOGICAL CONSISTENCY in the theory."

    Let´s go by parts. You claim only the two way speed of light can be measured. Let´s take this as given. OK. Then we must impose the isotropy of space to calculate the OWSL.Ok. Now you claim that because of that, the existence of absolute space is a matter of pure logic. I cannot see that. I ask you to show me exactly that logical contradictions will exist if we don´t assume an absolute space in this picture.

    Also, by saying that, you´re saying that SR has contradictions. In GR, the world is mapped in a 4-d manifold called space-time. Different observers may assign different coordinates to the same event, yet the events ARE THE SAME. This mathematical formalsim does not lead to contradictions. You can make the problem arbitrarily difficult with words, creating an apparent paradox in SR is something rather simple, but since the theory is based on the usage of tensors and differential manifolds, it is supposed to be free of any contradictions. However, to show that a particular paradox is not a paradox in SR sometimes requires a lot of thought.

    I think you´re thinking SR just in terms of the speed of light postulate, but a better look is simply to state Lorentz invariance. The invariance of the interval is something directly accesible once we have clocks and rulers precise enough. Now once you state that Lorentz invariance is one of the symmetries of the universe, we may get untestable predictions, like maybe the value of OWSL as you defend. You can either reject Lorentz invariance and try another theory without untestable predictions or keep it. In face of decades of work of high energy and particle physics I prefer to keep it.

    Finally, Barbour has shown (see the references) that GR (and with it, Lorentz invariance) coupled to electromagnetism can be seen as a direct consequence of imposing a relational conception of motion. This includes the OWSL (which you say is not measurable) and without any backgound absolute space.

    " So you have to admit that this field is static and that it can be considered as preferred frame of reference to judge the motion of the charges, do you agree?"

    No. As I said, Barbour derives all electromagnetism without any absolute structure.

    "Finally, with respect to gamma, I see no difference since in your formulation you require a parameter denoting change and in Newton's theory t, plays this role with the same meaning."

    The difference, as I said before, is that we must have reparametrization invariance with such a gamma. We don´t reparametrize t arbitrarily in Newtonian mechanics.

    Finally, I would not like to have long arguments about paradoxes of SR here. As I said, this sometimes becomes very hard to solve. I prefer to keep this space to discuss my proposal on the measurement problem. We´ve had a discussion on relational x absolute conceptions of motion last year, and we´ve reached a conclusion, so I feel it is unecessary to repeat it.

    Best regards,

    Daniel

    Hello Thomas! Thank you very much. I think there was some problem, in your post is not complete. Please post it again.

    Daniel

    Dang it. I've never seen this glitch before. I wrote directly into the message box; I don't have a copy.

    Since I took an hour or so to compose the message, I won't be able to recreate it as I'd like in my now limited time. I'll do my best to get the gist across:

    Let's alter the map such that the arrow x ----> y is reversed. We then see that the ouput y accepts input through x, alpha, Beta and recursive to x. This illustrates the difference between a continuous measurement function that includes a time parameter and the discrete Hilbert space measure that does not. The map is also now identical to the real projective plane, RPP -- a nonorientable surface -- such that observer orientation alone assures both a noncommutative result and continuous input-output by the free will hypothesis.

    Reversing the arrow x

    Aha! I get it now. The system won't accept my arrow drawing, oriented to the left. Continuing:

    Reversing the arrow (y to x) implies the independence of language and meaning (the theme of a paper I contributed to the Karl Popper Centenary in 2002), such that meaning is identical to neither the process of computation nor to the formal language (mathematics), and is solely identified with physical event.

    All best wishes in the contest, Daniel!

    Tom

    Daniel,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

      Dear Daniel,

      I found your subject and your paper interesting.

      I am surprised that you don't comment on quantum observables. For example, the word spin does not appear in your essay. Is there a reason for that?

      Best wishes,

      Michel

        Hi Michel. Thank you very much for your feedback. I did not discuss spin nor any quantum observable mainly because I just had this idea. I'm now thinking about how to rigourosly formalize this definition of observation and then look at QM equipped with it.

        Hello James. I will take a look at your entry.

        Daniel

        Tom,

        I feel I need to learn a lot about language and meaning. It is a pity that your original message was lost. I think we have a lot to talk.

        Daniel

        Dear Mr. Alves,

        Your highly technical treatise was most absorbing, though in many parts I had difficulty following it. I will therefore state my comments along the broadest lines.

        Though there is much that interested me in your exploration of defining observation mathematically, my view is that even if the emergence of random outcomes could be explained and contextualized by reconfiguring the nature of space-time, or in a variety of mathematical ways, the nature of information would remain unchanged: It would still define the Observer's 'patch of reality' at any given moment, and it would continue to do so throughout evolution.

        To consider that mathematics can one day capture all of reality is to ignore the perpetual nature of evolution; inadvertently, we then return to the concept of an absolute underlying reality, one that dismisses both the evolution of the Cosmos, and of its Observer.

        I consider that we are involved in a distinctive human Cosmos, one that displays a continuous correlation between Bit and It over the course of evolution; in this system, the observer does not interact with the whole field of reality, regardless of how probabilities emerge, or of how mathematical parameters might re-define them.

        Physics and Mathematics is the projection of the human mind on to the Cosmos - it will always be this, and it will always be entirely composed of Bits, thus keeping the Bit-It conundrum relevant to any definition of the Cosmos. My interest is, rather, to see how Physics and mathematics might account for the consistent contiguity of Bits and Its at every instant of evolution - whatever the nature of space-time.

        It would be interesting, then, if your mathematical definition of observation could be applied to this larger context. Our parameters would then be enlarged considerably, and we would essentially be able to compute our own evolution, and even to control it.

        As you can probably tell, this is one of the strands of my essay - which I think you would find interesting for the reasons I've stated.

        Yours is a very serious work, one with consequences; I think you will find much to interest you in the Correlation of Bit to It I describe in my essay. Let me know.

        All the best,

        John

        Dear Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves:

        I am writing you just because you are a physicist, I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, so I can discuss your essay. I am sending you a summary of my "The deep nature of reality" thinking you may be interest in the experimental meaning of time. So you can decide if you read it or not.

        I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

        I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

        With my best whishes

        Héctor

        Dear Daniel,

        i just read your entry and found it very clearly written. I don't know much about category theory but your exposition has helped me get a better idea.

        It seems to me that potentially there is a challenge with using category theory to help understand the measurement problem. Based on what little that I understand about category theory, it strikes me as most powerful when you start with structure that is already extremely well-understood and then use functors to clarify other less-well understood structures. It seems to me that when it comes to the measurement problem we don't have as yet a well understood physical theory in any realm of physics that could serve as the initial well-understood structure based on which the structural components of a quantum mechanical observation could be mathematical defined. Do you agree with this?

        I would like to suggest that in mathematics, however there may be such a structure. In the second half of my entry I mention a principle which already underlies tacitly certain aspects of mathematics which I believe may also underlie quantum superposition and collapse. I have not found any formal mathematical treatment of this principle anywhere and would be very glad if you could take a look at it and share your thoughts with me.

        All the best,

        Armin

        Dear Daniel,

        I will read your essay in detail in a week from now.

        Mine also deals with a mathematical approach of quantum observations

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

        Best wishes,

        Michel

        Dear Daniel

        You: I have shown an argument by Barbour last year which shows that the existence of a quantum field does not entail the existence of absolute space

        From comments like this, I could deduce that for you the interaction between particles, which are separated by a distance, takes place by means of fields. But you also mention that a field doesn't entail an absolute frame of reference. This of course depends on your vision of a field. From my view, a field is nothing but a state of space itself.

        You also claim that the relational approach is a far more powerful approach than the substantial one. That depends on the degree each approach has developed. If you believe so, it's because you are not aware of the advances in the substantial field.

        You: Now you claim that because of that, the existence of absolute space is a matter of pure logic. I cannot see that.

        There are many physical things that we cannot directly "see" but we have to assume them for the sake of consistency. Some times we can infer them. Electromagnetic waves, antimatter, atoms, the CMB radiation, quarks, etc, were not "observed" but they were predicted, inferred, discovered or assumed. Space conceived as a material substance is inferred for consistency. Just as we inferred and feel time in the same way we inferred space. But the way we inferred it is different. Some follow Leibniz arguing that space is a mesh of relationships and some follow Newton arguing that space is a material substance. Leibniz, Barbour and Smolin are actually talking about localization of objects in relation to one another whereas Newton and me and some others are talking about the substance the world is made of. If you accept that objects are made of matter, then I say that space is also made of matter. I'll give you my idea. Space is a material ocean and particles are actually solitons. Please go to wikipedia and check the sine-gordon equation so you have an idea of what a solition is. If we think that a soliton is an energy packet, we have a solid ground to unify the notions of particle and wave in one concept. Particles and waves can be seen in essence as aspects of solitons. In this scenario a particle is an excitation of the vacuum or space and a field is just a state of the vacuum. Einstein and the relationalists conceive the reality in the opposite direction. They think that space is totally empty and in turn is filled with material particles and fields of any kind. A field in this view is not an state of space or of a carrier and a particle is also an entity different from space. I hold the opposite view. The standard model of particles has already been written in the language of solitions. I hope you get the idea.

        With respect to the contradictions in relativity, I'll mention only one just as an illustration of my view. This is a paradox and consists in that we initially have two synchronized clocks at rest. Then at some time one clock is set in motion from point A (origin) to point B as measured in the system of reference of the clock at rest. Thus, for the prime observer in relative motion, the clock at relative rest should appear ticking slowly in its trip from point A' (origin) to point B' (as measured in the prime frame) whereas for the observer at relative rest the clock in relative motion should tick slowly. According to SR, both clocks should tick slowly and when the elapsed time of both clocks is compared at the final points B and B', respectively, both must show the same time. This means that STRICTLY speaking and following the logic of the theory is IMPOSSIBLE to decide whether time dilates or not for one or the other observer. Both observers conclude that time dilates and at the same time their clocks show the same time at points B and B', respectively. This impossibility of decision is due to the fact that in SR there are no absolute frames. If there were an absolute frame, then one would argue that one clock was REALLY in motion, that is, that one clock was in ACTUAL REST and the other in ACTUAL motion. The clock with actual motion underwent time dilation.

        I hope you have understood the paradoxical part. Most relativists don't even see it and therefore they deny it. Some others argue that one observer was accelerated, etc. This is not a matter of acceleration but of logic in the theory since motion is not absolute or actual but relative. When motion is not absolute or real, time dilation or length contraction are not actual effects, only apparent effects. That's why SR is a fake, it predicts relative effects but however we experimentally observe ACTUAL effects which are in contradiction with the logic of the theory. Please read the ORIGINAL paper of the experiment of Ives-Stilwell. Stilwell argues in the same direction. Experiments to measure time dilation show real effects whereas the theory predicts apparent effects due to the lack of an absolute frame of reference. The fact that effects are real imply that there exists an absolute frame of reference contrary to the customary view. This is what unfortunately, relativists don't understand and don't recognize.

        You also talked about Lorentz invariance. I don't deny it, I accepted, I just argue that one should not exclude the absolute frame among the myriad of frames, that's all. This frame is not superfluous as I've already explained.

        You: ...reparametrization invariance..

        Indeed you are reparametrizing, swapping t by gamma, and gamma is an arbitrary parameter. With arbitrary physical meaning.

        Best Regards

        Israel

        Mr. Daniel Alves,

        the main title of Your essay, attired my attention, and not modestly,

        this is my answer : m2v2 m1v1 nMz = 0 .

        This simple formula, in my essay is derived by a very simple "shape dynamics".

        I would like Your reply about.

        See You and My best Regards.

        10 days later

        Daniel,

        I thought your essay was illuminatingly interesting. I do hope that you will not think me impertinent, but I would like to give my answer to a question you posed.

        You asked: " But is the notion of absolute space really indispensible? Newton knew that all he really measured were particle separation rij. Could we make physics dispensing absolute positions?"

        I have helpingly listed all of the absolutes the real Universe conforms with in my essay BITTERS:

        The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

        One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

        Joe

        7 days later

        Dear Daniel,

        I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

        Regards and good luck in the contest,

        Sreenath BN.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827