Alternative Models of Reality

John M,

I agree. Re "part of [physicists'] philosophy is that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist ":

There are things that can't be measured, but we can represent them either with words or symbols. E.g. I contend that physical reality is actually made out of not only things that can be measured, but things that can't be measured: the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in law of nature mathematical equations represent non-measurable aspects of reality. These symbols can't just be swept under the carpet and ignored: if they don't live in a Platonic realm then they must represent a real part of THIS universe. (We might philosophise about what these symbols might imply about the nature of reality. I contend that they represent information relationship and information balance.)

Zeeya,

The non-measurable aspects of reality are the basis for a GENUINE alternative model of reality. There is nothing genuinely alternative about multiverses, living inside a computer game or loop quantum gravity etc. etc. because they are all just another set of equations with another set of interpretations of these equations: but they never examine what an equation actually is. Seemingly they all assume equations are given and non-decomposable; they turn a blind eye to the above mentioned non-measurable aspects of equations. Yet equations clearly consist of modular components, e.g. "+, -, ÷, x" and "=": so it is unlikely that what equations represent just arises whole and complete ex nihilo.

So I contend that unless a theory accounts for the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in its equations, it is incomplete. It is a misrepresentation to propose e.g. a multiverse or a computer game universe: actually what is REALLY being hypothesised is a (multiverse PLUS platonic realm) or a (computer game universe PLUS platonic realm).

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,

Keep in mind that factors and functions are nouns and verbs. Since math is conceptual compression, I would argue the ultimate theory of everything is; "Stuff happens."

Regards,

John M

Tom,

There's little scientific credibility in a PR event for an old man with an invited audience. I wrote an article on this some years ago. The interesting thing is all my web links are either now dead or have been tampered with! Wide records of the annual symposiums on relativistic astrophysics all exist, except for some reason the Fifth! If ever any clumsy footprint evidence existed that seems like it!

But pdf's and printed matter remain, as does the science. 'Venus Express' has found an 'unexpected' thick atmosphere, giving refractive light delays way over the 2ns predicted from curvature. Unless Shapiro went there first and knew how thick it was his removal of 90% of the delay to leave the 2ns was just a 'stab in the dark.' That was the 'systematic error' Dicke, Wallis etc found, so was why he was 'pulled' as keynote speaker.

If it was some attempt to mislead the Russians it failed anyway. Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri (Pulkovo Observatory) pointed out the error shortly afterwards but her paper didn't get published in the US. But was Shapiro's 1971 paper 'pulled'? Hell was it! So when the model was later used on Jupiter and proved to be rubbish there was no end of confusion and argument!

I could send you some pdf's direct, but the Jupiter stuff is all still available. As is a quote from a 1965 letter to Shapiro in the AJ on a realted issue; "The main reason that your newer results appear to look better, is that your group found it could eliminate the large daily variations by changing to a constant observing time (12:00 UT), even when the planet was not observed or in some cases was not even visible."(J. V. Evans, etal., Astron. J. 70, 486- 1965) . Just a few relevant papers;

Evans, J. V., R. P. Ingalls, 1968: Absorption of Radar Signals by the Atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 555-559. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469 (1968) 0252.0.CO;2

Wallace B.G., Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space. Spectroscopy Letters. Volume 2, Issue 12, 1969

Ingals R.P., Evans J.V., MIT. Scattering Properties of Venus at 3.8cm. AJ, vol.74 no.2, 1969.

Asada H., 2002, The Light-cone Effect on the Shapiro Time Delay http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0206/0206266v1.pdf

Kopeikin, S. 2001, ApJ, 556, L1

Kopeikin S.M. The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462

Klioner S.A. A&A 404, 783-787 (2003) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030559

The beauty of the DFM is that it shown none of the above challenges the true postulates and theory of relativity. All it does is prove some attached assumptions were wrong, and finally allow the missing mechanisms and compatibility with (an also slightly re-interpreted to allow particles with structure) QM. SR and GR will not then fail on the now overwhelming and confirmed evidence of apparent superluminal motion and ionospheric refraction.

Of course if there was some well meaning conspiracy I'd have some sympathy with it. It seems our intellectual development may not be quite ready to face unified physics! Perhaps 2030?

Peter

Ah, Peter. I'm going to ignore your conspiracy theory, and address this point alone:

"All it does is prove some attached assumptions (of special relativity - ed.) were wrong, and finally allow the missing mechanisms and compatibility with (an also slightly re-interpreted to allow particles with structure) QM. SR and GR will not then fail on the now overwhelming and confirmed evidence of apparent superluminal motion and ionospheric refraction."

You just refuse to understand that one cannot discard *any* assumption of special relativity and preserve the theory. You are going to have to build your theory on a different foundation. I'll be interested when you find it.

All best,

Tom

And by the way, do you really think the Massachusetts Institute of Technology would tacitly agree to falsify scientific results for the sake of " ... a PR event for an old man with an invited audience."?

Really, Peter?

"I would argue the ultimate theory of everything is; 'Stuff happens.'"

John, isn't that kind of like hanging an empty frame on a wall and scrawling in the middle, "your picture goes here"? :-)

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Exactly!!!! That's the reality of the non-platonic view. Everything is not just a poor copy of some ideal, but arises from the essential. Which is activity in space. Stuff happens. ;-)

Regards,

John M

We agree in principle, John. I hope you don't mind that some of us will continue to paint pictures, anyway, independent of the wall they hang on. :-)

All best,

Tom

Tom,

We each express our vision of reality. The absolute would be just a flatline...

Regards, John M

A correction to my post to you on 9/16, I got apples and oranges mixed with the delay and wavelength rate of change in the second paragraph towards the end. The rate of delay can rebound going from greater to lesser refraction index, not the wavelength. There's a fine example of why math is an essential tool to check yourself for commutative property in redistribution of terms. jrc

Tom,

I use Einstein's foundations. You didn't answer; Should we use your views now or those you held 40 years ago?

I don't 'refuse to understand' anything. You keep chanting the same chant. I do understand. I always did. It's you who now say FTL quasar pulses are OK by 'your' SR! I've just shown they're OK by Einstein's more consistent 1952 SR too.

So explain how Shapiro new exactly the refractive loss from the Venus atmosphere so he could remove it to leave the tiny 'predicted' result, and why it doesn't now work (Jupiter etc). ??

'Conspiracy' was your idea. I just think it's the same type of well meaning misguided souls who remove posts off the web as they don't agree with them. Almost precisely the same in fact. Ring any Bells?

How about some honesty to avoid the smells starting to hang around all the avoidances from getting ever worse?

Peter

Pete,

Thank-you for the clarification and info on the rebound, I thought I was wrong.

Let me digest this some, I seem to remember a TV program that briefly presented Hau's experiments, super-cooled media as I recall.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that GR results in defining time dilation at distances from an inertial body provide the means to eventually define a discrete field. Not unlike Faraday's results providing Maxwell with the real field intensities from which to unify the EM field. The utility in formalizing

those GR results in a linear equation to equate energy density (field intensity)

with distribution of energy quantity should not be objectionable to theorists simply on the grounds that GR is formulated on a curved surface. The results of GR are there at the ready, why not use them. Still, that formality must be addressed to provide the geometry between discrete fields (particles and charge definition) to apply SR. jrc

Peter, I don't have any more to say.

This is a repeat of an earlier post with a correction (proton instead of electron in 5th paragraph).

I would like to say something about the Spacetime Wave theory treatment of the property force.

We are told that there are four fundamental forces namely: gravitation, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. Why are there four forces and what is the underlying cause of these forces?

We need to start with the force of gravity and use the ideas of General Relativity (GR) to think through how the geometry of spacetime results in this force. The force of gravity appears to be a force acting between two bodies somehow pulling them together; a sort of action at a distance. GR tells us that it is the geometry of spacetime that results in the force of gravity.

The Spacetime Wave theory asserts that all fundamental forces arise as a result of the geometry of spacetime acting on objects in spacetime. This assertion seems surprising at first since the magnitude of the gravitational force is much less than the other forces. How can we understand how the electromagnetic and nuclear forces arise from the geometry of spacetime? The key point is to note that the presence of a force will be accompanied by a difference in energy levels between two states. If a force is present, this implies an energy difference between the current state and any physical movement in the direction of the force. So the magnitude of the force will be related to an energy difference between two states.

In the case of the strong nuclear force the energy difference is the mass deficit. When a proton and a neutron are in close proximity, the energy (mass) is less than the energy (mass) of the individual proton and neutron widely separated. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the looped spacetime wave nature of the neutron and proton. The energy of the spacetime wave in a closed loop is affected by the close proximity of another looped spacetime wave.

Similarly the electrostatic force and the magnetic force can be seen to arise from differences in energy levels once we have grasped the Spacetime Wave theory as related to electric charge.

This approach to the property force seems much more satisfactory than the idea of a force arising from a continuous exchange of particles.

Richard

Eckard,

Some may find honesty and exactitude optional, so 'belief and assumptions' then trump 'findings and logic', but I don't. I was disappointed in your assumption above that I did so.

That assumption was easy to make from casual checking. My use of the word 'immediately' probably mislead you. The systemic problem was 'immediately recognised' when the raw data was released, well after 1964 but before 1971 (the first paper I found was 1968). I hope I showed above that your assumption was incorrect. I'm not after any apology but hope you noticed my response and will remember that I was indeed precise if incomplete (impossible on a blog!), both in the interests of integrity and to help avoid future false assumptions.

I expect it may have been no more a 'conspiracy' than the removal of posts on Joy's blog which Tom was criticising. In fact in this case I do have some sympathy, as there is a strong case to suggest that perhaps mankind isn't yet ready to handle the powerful truths of nature. Would even 2020 be too soon?

What do you think?

Peter

J.C.

The problem Maxwell's equations don't resolve is the failure of Snell's Law and 'Fresnel' refraction at the near/far field transition zone (TZ). We still only have entirely anomalous 'Fraunhofer refraction' and 'virtual photons' there, with all the 'non-linear' optical effects such as Kinetic Reverse Refraction (KRR), termed 'bizarre' under present interpretations.

This is one area the DFM interpretation and mechanism proves to coherently resolve, recovering Snell's Law and rationalising Special Relativity, QM, KRR et al. Consider the matrix I mailed you as also representing the state changes at Maxwell's TZ. All will then fall into place. But you do need to apply your intellect not just rely on old assumptions.

What you've seen are glimpses, but you're still mainly held by the marshy mire Popper characterised old theory as founded on.

You have a head start as you trust the answer exists and want to find it.

Best wishes

Peter

(PS. If anyone else wishes to see the matrix just ask).

I've uploaded a current version, as attached here, to the arxiv; I'll comment later to give the arxiv link.Attachment #1: U1gSept19th.pdf

In the Alternative Models of (other people's) Reality category, now that the Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs thread has quieted for the moment, it has long seemed to me a vortex of opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles. With the repetitions and deletions it was as though scratches appeared on the record and it started to skip. (Whoever titled the thread must have had a similar feeling.)

I provide this as one small anecdotal analogy for the fact that while vortices frequently appear in nature, their mathematical projection to infinity, commonly referred to as singularities, never does, because this is a physical phenomena that occurs when conflicting elements exchange energy and is thus created and absorbed by this larger context. So whether it is atmospheric situations of cold fronts moving over warmer air, or galactic formations of contracting mass interacting with expanding radiation, or people in conflict, the action is ultimately cyclical. Only on small scales does it look linear.

As for locality, vs. non-locality, could it be a manifestation of bottom up/linear and local, vs. top down/systemic, non-linear, scalar processes?

Regards,

John M

Interesting article, John. Thx. It seems a little "glass half-empty" about the limitations of using mathematics in physics and engineering, but not so much that it's impossible to be a little "glass half-full" about it.