Alternative Models of Reality

Peter,

" If we change that oscillation rate (where emitted by what we call a 'clock') we do NOT measure a change in some mystical property called 'time', only a change in a local oscillation rate. That is the important difference missed."

I agree there is no mystical property called time.

"'Time' on the clocks of 3 people is co-ordinated and equal. But if one was approaching another at high speed the 'signals' from the other watch would simply be Doppler shifted, so the rate changed. We then need a new term 'apparent' time, which then defines SR's 'co-ordinate' time. But the rate of time (and watches) for all observers is unaltered. This very simple fact entirely eludes current theory and causes untold havoc and confusion."

The problem with this point is that the effect is not just doppler shift. Since nothing can exceed the speed of light, when you accelerate a clock and its observer to close to the speed of light, their internal atomic activity is in fact slowed, since the electrons are vibrating/cycling at nearly the speed of light to begin with, so when you combine both external velocity and internal activity, it still can't exceed C, so everything in that frame is slowed proportionally. I think though that this goes to the inherent inertial effect of space, rather than some spacetime geometry being a causal property. The fact is that the concept of time as part of this foundational math is simply based on measures of duration and how they are affected by context, such as velocity, gravity, acceleration.

Duration emerges from action. As you seem to agree in the first paragraph, time is simply the change caused by activity, such that if it goes faster, so does its "clock." Duration being what is physically happening between points of reference. So it is the slowed activity which results in slowed time, not time as the frame causing activity to slow.

So no time as mystical property, only measure of change caused by action.

Regards,

John M

Adel,

In answer to your questions:

1. I think that it is futile to ask what ether is made of. If I said that ether was made of substance 'x', you could then ask what is substance 'x' made of. (String theorists are not concerned with what strings are made of; they are primarily interested in their properties). Ether is THEE fundamental substance and a foamy or web like structure makes for an excellent model of reality.

2. Because the ether is elastic, it is subject to distortions. A knot or kink will cause the surrounding ether to distort. The stickiness of the ether (similar to a spider web) keeps the knot from unfolding. The laws I use in the computer simulation use Hooke's Law for calculating spring distortion.

3. FET has quantum behavior build in because the foamy cells are the size of a Planck length so everything gets grainy at that scale. Because I am not a particle physicist, I can't give you exact pictures of atoms, but I'm assuming they are knots that are very similar to orbitals already calculated using current QM maths. In FET, these images would represent knots in the foamy ether instead of probability clouds of orbiting electrons.

Peter Hahn

Zeeya,

Exciting times to be a science journalist. The barbarians are at the gates and the old order is mostly bickering amongst themselves. All foam and bubbles and little forward momentum. Recipe for change.

Regards,

John M

Zeeya,

I understand the opportunity you are offering, but the fact is that every participant on these forums does have some form of model, or improvement on an existing model, that they have been using every other thread to advance and debate the virtues over other's models. So being given a thread specifically dedicated to the purpose should engender enthusiasm, but the sense is more that it removes what little padding there is on the wall we have been banging our heads against. Not to say I'm ungrateful for the chance, but it begs some larger questions, such as how could there be any form of objective consideration, since even the pros have resorted to anthropic multiverses to explain reality?

You are a journalist, not a judge, so it is your job to report the state of the discipline, not make judgements, but as a journalist you still have to do some editing and narrating. This can go in any number of directions. Necessarily the normal route with science reporting is simply to report whatever cutting edge experiment, theory, or discovery has happened recently and leave larger context to those writing books. Yet it must be occurring to the members of your profession that cutting edge might just be a little far out over the edge. So at some point journalism will also have to turn around and try to figure out where the train did leave the tracks, or else step off the edge into the multiverse.

I suspect you have read some of my more repeated points, so I won't bother you with them here and the other participants in these discussions have heard and given their opinions in no uncertain terms. In the long run though, we will most likely have to let the dust settle somewhat and see what is still standing.

Thank you very much.

Regards,

John M

Dear Zeeya,

If you have children or grandchildren, you will observe what I see an increasing loss of distinction between virtual reality and reality. Do we really need more and more alternative models of reality as to possibly save our preferred theories? Perhaps, you felt that your recent article in Nature on theoretical physics and the origins of space and time does too much focus on mathematically based theories rather than on the question how realistic they are.

Set theory and Hilbert space were welcomed as alternative to Euclid's definition of point and continuum and to Salviati's insight. Meanwhile, the mainstream even denies that the other way round Euclid, Galileo, and Shannon are still serious alternatives to the virtually endless search for new alternatives to a qualified common sense notions of logic and reality.

Regards,

Eckard

John,

You want Zeeya to report honestly on leading edge research, but censor anything you disagree with, such as the multiverse hypothesis, which is part of leading edge research?

If you don't have an ethical problem with that, I think you should.

Because my first career was journalism (not restricted to science) I have first hand experience with powerful people who control media resources (think Rupert Murdoch and his ilk) shaping news and opinion to suit their religion or philosophy, tastes, or just plain whim. I've been subpoenaed for testimony before the FCC with other Young Turk journalists of that day (the early 70s) who were reprimanded, fired or otherwise punished for reporting news not to the liking of owners and advertisers. We lost the battle, of course -- there are no more FCC standards that mean anything, and commercial news today both national and local is hardly anything more than sad or silly, even though still unduly influential. Thank God for public broadcasting and the BBC.

So ask yourself that if you had the power, would you publish only those science theories or anything else, that suit your worldview or whimsy?

Academics serve at the pleasure of institutions, John. They are not powerful people. They do their research and communicate the results, for university public relations departments to report to the public. And the institutions are hardly going to support research that tarnishes their reputation for what they *perceive* as a leading edge organization, because that perception feeds their funding stream of corporate and alumni largesse.

So you would dare ask a courage freelance journalist like Zeeya to become a functionary for your -- or anyone else's -- opinions of what science should be? There are already too few Zeeyas, and too many Murdochs. When the ratio is reversed, the world will be safe for informed opinions.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I think you may be projecting your own experiences onto this situation a little too emphatically. It is safe to say that I have no power over what Zeeya writes and if using multiverses offends you, I will gladly switch to some other example, such as supersymmetry, which has been publicly faltering. There are lots of ideas put forth and I will readily admit there are a number I feel to be arrived at through erroneous logic and am will to offer my two cents on the subject. Would you alternatively feel that I have no rights to express my thoughts? Wouldn't that amount to censorship as well? There will alway be conflicting viewpoints on any number of subjects and those where there are none, tend not to elicit much discussion. If you read back through what I did write, you might notice my main intent is to try to explain to Zeeya the tactical position of those of us in these conversations. I don't think it really qualifies as directing her reporting to observe there is a natural give and take to the process, such that not all ideas are viable and someone, somewhere has to make some decisions as what to focus on.

Regards,

John M

Hi Richard, I don't dispute your claim that if there's a wave that propagates there must be something that waves, not as much as would some, because it is possible for a dynamics to be Lorentz invariant, as experiment quite strongly indicates it must be, but I feel a "so what?" reaction. What consequences does it have for a detailed mathematical description/model if there is a material ether? A 100 years ago, a material ether was felt so little to suggest Lorentz invariance that it was felt to be incompatible. After the event, and a 100 years, we know that Lorentz invariance can emerge in special states of condensed matter physics (for example, see Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"), but it's not a commonplace. Given that, how confident can we be that suggestions that come from a particular material ether hypothesis will turn out to be experimentally useful, unless experiment has played an overwhelming role in choosing the hypothesis?

My second reaction is to ask how exactly do the waves move? I see on your "Waves in Space-Time" page an example motion that seems to require some kind of nonlinear wave equation, but I don't begin to be content unless there is a likeable motivation for a particular nonlinearity of an equation, and happiness only follows if the mathematics is tractable and turns out to be experimentally useful. Lastly, most importantly by far, what about the apparent stochasticity of our experimental results, the wave-like nature of the statistics of recorded discrete events, rather than there being a directly wave-like phenomena?

"I think you may be projecting your own experiences onto this situation a little too emphatically."

I think you are dismissing the point.

Tom,

I very much am dismissing your point. You compared me to a press baron!!!

I would like to think I had some influence over Zeeya, or you, or anyone else in these discussions, but that could only happen through my writing, not by any financial, professional or political pressure or leverage, for the simple reason that I have none, even academic.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but even it is based on assumptions that need context. Yes, democratic freedom is an ideal we all prefer, but there are very real reasons why it isn't always universal. The ancient Athenians were democrats before the tyrants took over and the Romans were republicans before the caesars took over. Now we seem to be spiraling into some similar vortex. Understanding questions like this are what truly interest me about physics. There are quite a number of dynamic processes at work here, such as that gravitational vortex pulling all our carefully constructed structures into something far harder and denser than any of us would wish for and killing that real spark of growth in the process. The worms are eating away the old oak tree and it will eventually fall, but the world is not going to the worms.

Early on in life I very much had the opportunity to try and climb that greasy pole of success and be the one both standing on and leading my fellow beings. Since it did seem like such a " slapdash pre-rational way," I instead opted to sit back and observe. Had I been one to climb to the top and use whatever tools at my disposal to control what I could, I would be a different person than I am.

Now as to what I said to Zeeya; "at some point journalism will also have to turn around and try to figure out where the train did leave the tracks, or else step off the edge into the multiverse."

It is still reportage of conflicts as they are rising, not creating and leading them, but necessarily and professionally following them. Otherwise, she would not be doing actual journalism, but flacking for the status quo.

Regards,

John M

(reposted in correct thread)

"There are quite a number of dynamic processes at work here, such as that gravitational vortex pulling all our carefully constructed structures into something far harder and denser than any of us would wish for ..."

John, you do realize that none of that is supported by any actual physical evidence, don't you?

" ... she would not be doing actual journalism, but flacking for the status quo."

As opposed to flacking for some fake science? Just what is it you want?

Tom

Tom,

What physical evidence are you referring to? The evidence we are finding, the hard way, is that democracy is not always a default political condition.

Where does "real"science end and "fake" science begin? Testability? By what criteria are multiverses "real science," while questioning whether physical blocktime is valid, is "fake science?"

Whether one is being promoted by the status quo and one is not?

Obviously it is up to her to judge what constitutes reporting and what is opinion, so our arguing over it is moot.

Regards,

John M

I'm talking about physics, John. What do you mean by " ...gravitational vortex pulling all our carefully constructed structures into something far harder and denser than any of us would wish for ..."?

Tom,

It has been my experience that the more complex manifestations of nature necessarily comply with the more basic principles. Human culture is a complex manifestation of nature.

Consider that in the spring, as plants absorb energy, they expand, ie. grow and when the weather gets colder, this growth is condensed down and otherwise edited to what can be sustained. Democracy is far more supportable when there is sufficient energy to grow the organically whole society, but as this energy becomes less available, then the various parts of this structure begin to condense into themselves and even feed off other parts. There is a certain gravitational dynamic to this, as it is not so much a particular force, but overall effect. Now to the extent society is a reflection of biological processes, the state is a singular entity, generally defined by geographic boundaries, which are far more basic than corporate functions, that generally evolved to support functioning of the economy as a whole. If you look at it in biological terms, the state is like an individual body, while individuals and corporations are the biome, both internal, external and "transternal," if such a word might be considered. The group imperative will tend to supersede individual prerogatives, because sustaining the group is more evolutionarily necessary than the life of any particular individual. Yet there is the dichotomy that the group cannot survive without healthy individuals. Thus the need for balance.

I could build further on this idea, but I suspect I better let you get in some rejections first.

Besides which this is so completely off the topic, but then Zeeya did ask for our models of reality and human civilization is part of the picture.

Regards,

John M

John,

Why don't you just answer my straightforward question?

Tom

Tom,

You may have to restate your straightforward question, because I thought it was as to how gradually collapsing legal structures and cultural norms can be explained in physical terms.

Regards,

John M

For anyone who is reading the math, there is an embarrassing error at the bottom of page 5 (the "alternative way", which I will delete, is plain wrong), which has consequences for the first paragraph of subsection 3.3, the content of which will be modified and moved to Appendix C, and for the final sentence of subsection 3.4, which allows a straightforward fix. There is also a minor mistake in Appendix B (the placing of the "c.c"). Sadness, but good to fix.

John,

You originally said, "There are quite a number of dynamic processes at work here, such as that gravitational vortex pulling all our carefully constructed structures into something far harder and denser than any of us would wish for ..."

To which I replied: "... you do realize that none of that is supported by any actual physical evidence, don't you?"

Point is, the metaphors you use for physical phenomena are disconnected from the real events that we measure. Then you disdain the leading edge research that is so connected, as if the metaphors were the science and the science is rubbish.

Your later question -- "Where does 'real'science end and 'fake' science begin? Testability? By what criteria are multiverses 'real science,' while questioning whether physical blocktime is valid, is 'fake science?' -- I had already answered previously. The criterion is rationality. Yes, there is rational correspondence between the multiverse hypothesis and quantum mechanics; there is rational correspondence between the blocktime model and general relativity.

Where, in your theory, is the rational correspondence between your metaphors and the real physical phenomena?

Best,

Tom