Alternative Models of Reality

Dear all,

Physics is about our relationship to the universe; physicality. Everything we "know" holds only as long as we are in the picture as observer. The question here is; what is the universe in itself without us watching?

As stated many times above, physics cannot answer this question. This is the domain of metaphysics; the art of removing the observer from the equation.

Find the substance; that which exists by itself and is not created by our perception. (Everything we perceive is PERCEPTION or an experience. The opposite of experience is SUBSTANCE.

There need to be only one substance in the universe. Space is an integration we keep around in order to be able to do physics, but time is what makes everything. There is only time left.

The descriptive system we need is based on only one substance, dynamic, so that many variations may emerge from it. (Only one substance may operate logically on itself and its variations; no apples and oranges!)

Look at the equations; the rate of passage of time (1/T) makes pretty much everything, right in front of us. It is the basis, substratum, foundation of everything.

What is time? Time is the spontaneous attempt at the resolution of an illogical situation; existence of something. A contradiction to the rule of non-contradiction delayed by its only possible way-out existent; TIME.(see my FQXI essays)

Marcel,

Zeeya,

Logic is the set of rules that guides mathematics and science in its various theories.Logic is scale independant, valid at quantum and at cosmological scales.

The universe finds its evolution in the resolution of logical contradictions, starting with that of existence. Finding what the universe is made of and what makes it evolve by itself are the real questions. After that, we still can do physics. We will just know exactly what we are doing and what part we play in the picture and which part the the universe plays.

Marcel,

Marcel,

While I disagree with you that time is fundamental, I agree with your other points such as the idea that if we can answer the basic questions of "Why is the universe here instead of not here?" and "What is it made of?", this is the starting point in a much more fundamental understanding of the universe and of physics. After all, if metaphysics is the study of being and existence, and the universe "be"s and "exists", then the laws of physics and of the universe should be derivable from the principles of metaphysics. I've argued this exact point in my FQXi essays and posts over the years and at my website and call this type of thinking either philosophical engineering or a metaphysics-to-physics approach. But, good luck on getting any academics to embrace this view. They, as well as most amateurs, basically ignore this idea and seem to focus on the top-down approach of taking what we already know and trying to go deeper based on that. Both approaches of course require testable predictions and experimental evidence, but I think the metaphysics-to-physics approach is worth trying. The top-down physicists and philosophers of science sure don't seem to be making much headway in their quest to answering the more fundamental questions. Anyways, good posts.

Roger

sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

Marcel,

You say, "Find the substance; that which exists by itself and is not created by our perception", "There need to be only one substance in the universe"

Group 1: Space is a relational thing and not a substance. Plato, Leibniz, Mach belong here (although Plato says the unit of space, 'the point' is physically real and not a mathematical fiction. See my 2013 essay here).

Group 2: Space is a substance (substantivalism). Aristotle, Proclus, Newton belong here.

Group 3: On the fence. Einstein belongs here. Space is relational but it can vibrate allowing gravitational waves to propagate. Space can by itself differentiate rotational from linear motion without any reference to the fixed stars contrary to Mach's principle.

Which group do you belong and why? What irrefutable evidence do you have against Group 2?

Akinbo

Roger,

I agree that they are not there yet. I checked your website. (Mine is very old, not up-to-date; physics of time speed)

Your grouping needs to be defined by a rule of impossibility in order to make it a truth system. From one impossibility all the possibilities will emerge. I mean, if everything and anything goes, well, we end up with no laws of physics no rules of logic etc. The impossibility to go faster than light is the impossibility from which Special relativity is born; all conclusions emerge from this fact or postulate. The impossibility to distinguish between gravity and inertia is the impossibility where general relativity begins. As you can see, they are both successful truth system but they emerge from different starting-defining impossibilities, usually very difficult to reconcile. (e.g. gravity vs QM)

In my model, the rule of non-contradiction (impossibility) defines the only possible exitent in it. Nothing else but the passage of time may exist in it without leading to a contradiction, i.e. existence and non existence cannot be at the same time... unless they are never found at the same time! The passage of time is an explosive process that meets the requirement. A contradiction that is never tested because never found at the same time. This passage of time is the substance. Well, you could call it anything since it makes everything, but, being a SUBSTANCE, we have no direct experience of it. Except within our own perception of time passed, due to consciousness and memory. These two attributes allow us to sense the substance and its effect on everything; motion, past present etc.

We have the rule of impossibility and the substance. We still need one rule of operation that must be built into a property of the substance itself. Here it is. Existence is more probable where time runs slower. (gravity) This is the only causal rule necessary for the whole system, including its expansion. (nothingness = no time = "slowest time" possible = spontaneous motion in all directions aka explosive).

In this model, we are not present as observers and the way we see and conceive up things to be is not interfering. This universe works by itself as it should.

Causality is all. Crunching the numbers is on a want to know basis.

If the universe is so simple, it should be explained in simple terms anyone on the street can grasp...

Marcel,

Akinbo,

Group 1 and 2 are metaphysics and may discuss the nature of space.

Group 3 is physics and it cannot say "what is" but only "what appears" because based on experience.

Group 2 contains many approaches but from different angles.

I have to say group 4. If I were in any known group, I would not be stating anything new. Philosophy is about either discussing old ideas or coming up with new ones. Too many people of the first group, not enough of the second.

Marcel,

Akinbo,

Let me put it this way. The groups 1 and 2 that try to answer the question "what is space' are wrong in the question itself. "Space" is a construct of our mind and already carries dimensions. Call it the vacuum.

Since the question addressed by group 1 and 2 are not valid metaphysical questions, I have to create my own group that addresses the question; " what substance makes the vacuum". This way I have shaved off one layer of the problem by removing our own construct.

Marcel,

Marcel,

Hi. Thanks for the feedback!

In your thinking, why is the passage of time present instead of not present. Also, where does the operations rule "Existence is more probable where time runs slower. (gravity)" come from. I'm thinking that any theory needs to explain why its necessary things (e.g. passage of time, etc.) exist.

Roger,

We say that time slows down in a gravitational field, slower closer to Earth and faster away from it. It is there even if we don't have a clock there, i.e. it is there without measuring it. The local passage of time drives the clock. In other words, the local passage of time determines the rate of evolution of spontaneous processes, here, the clock. This is why we trust spontaneous processes to measure the local rate of passage of time. Spontaneous falling of sand in the hourglass or the spontaneous transition of a ceasium atom ...etc.

Actually, Bill Unruh says it is not gravity that slows time. No. Gravity IS the unequal passage of time from place to place. It is then easy to see that the spontaneous movement in a gravitational field is caused by this unequal rate of passage of time, moving from faster rate toward a slower rate. Simply put, anything that exists does so more where it is/spends more time, i.e. where time runs slower.. Because the fact of existence is the only property of concern here, every object, matter waves.. etc gets attracted in the same way.

Because everything is made of any number of variation in the rate of passage of time matter does replace locally the passage of time because of the rule of non-contradiction; the rate of passage of time cannot in one place and one time be both just passing time and its variation. From this, matter (or any existent) replaces locally the evolution of the passage of time and reduces it causing gravity. So, anything that exists, replacing the passage of time (substance), has a gravity field. Giving universal gravitation; everything that exists attracts each other.

Marcel,

Marcel,

Roger,

addendum

The rate of passage of time is 1/t. Everywhere, in all our equations. If time slows down, it get smaller, meaning the denominator gets bigger. The time of existence or residence t is bigger/longer. So, existents tends to exist more there because they ARE there longer.

Marcel,

Akinbo,

"Let me put it this way. The groups 1 and 2 that try to answer the question 'what is space' are wrong in the question itself"

What specifically is wrong with the question?

Marcel: Philosophy keeps pretty much the same questions through the ages. But the answers are time sensitive. In the age of QM and GR the answer and even the questions must be adapted.

"Space is a construct of our mind and already carries dimensions"

Marcel: The universe is a cold dark place with matter and radiations. Our eyes and mind make from it the color, conceive the space and shapes etc. My questions pertain to matters behind this perception.

Are you saying that without minds space cannot exist?

Marcel: Yes. We already know that. This is why we call it space-time. It is all time, but we kept the "space" part in order to keep the experience of physics going. You look at a meter stick. That is space for you. But the universe has no eyse and mind to integrate, like you do, all the points of the meter in one moment of perception. No. The universe has no point of view like you do. The universe is not contemplative, it is operational. For one point to affect another point requires some time even at the speed of light. Because it requires time they cannot be at the same moment. On the other hand, Space is a concept of things being at the same moment, like objects ...

"What substance makes the vacuum"

Marcel: Substance it that which exist by itself, we don't make it, and it makes everything but that we cannot perceived other than through a relationship called "experience". Experience is our own adapted, transformed interpretation of the substance. All of our reality is nothing without us making it by our experience. Physics is the study of this experience.

"Metaphysics..."

My dictionary says: branch of philosophy concerned with being and knowing. Is physics not also about being and knowing?

Marcel: Yes, but within the confines of our experience. Sure, as Dean Rickles explained, a kind of metaphysics is creeping into physics with advanced mathematics and other theories. But excess baggage is carried along and we don't let go easily and enough of the way we perceive and think required to address the foundation of it all.

Answers to most other questions are in the posts to Roger.

Thanks,

Marcel,

Marcel: "Substance it that which exist by itself, we don't make it, and it makes everything but that we cannot perceived other than through a relationship called 'experience'"

You are sounding here like Leibniz. See first 5 paragraphs of his Monadology.

But if you want us to take this further, what does it mean to exist? Can that which is not extended exist? That is, can something of zero dimension exist? Similarly, can something that is extended be non-existent? I assume here there is no argument on what extended means.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

This is four more questions ... I'll have to start charging you .. :-)

Leibniz is interesting and I saved the document. Thanks. Here goes ..

What does it mean to exist? The opposite of nothingness. But this falls into two categories. First category is the explosive passage of time, continual, with a rate that may vary from place to place (see gravity). This process, that started as the Big Bang and still "exploding" is continually generated and does not follow any laws of conservation. The second group is made of variations and assemblage of variations of the rate of passage of time. These are matter, waves etc. and they all exist by replacing locally the passage of time and they follow conservation laws.

The other questions are without meaning to me. In an exploding universe, spatial dimensions are meaningless. The dimensions are not spatial, they are dynamical. They are the derivatives of the rate of passage of time; decreasing, increasing and changing from one to the other. (Remember, everything is made of it and its properties) Logic requires a sharp demarcation between the existent of the second group. This is the quantum of action. The photons moves by themselves because they are made of such conjugate of action; a low rate followed by a high rate of passage of time. You have causality and direction built into the substance. The changing time rate is the magnetic field and the line along which B changes direction is the electric field, E. So, B and E are other types of variations of the passage of time. Since the Variations of the passage of time makes all the existent we have access to, we do know them under different names.

We make up time duration by integrating the rate of passage of time picked-up by our clocks. The only real piece of time duration is the period T. All photons have the same Planck quantum of action. What's the difference? The delivery time T! In a dynamic universe how quickly something happens is the key. Photons have all the same energy but different power because of different T or delivery time.

... and I could go on and on ...

Do you have ONE, more specific question?

Thanks,

Marcel,

Marcel, am not fully satisfied with the answers but will ask ONE more to avoid being charged :).

"First category is the explosive passage of time, continual, with a rate that may vary from place to place (see gravity)" - Marcel

Will you then agree that a Caesium-133 clock at a height 1.52x1011m from the Sun, will beat faster than one at 1.47 x1011m? If so, what do you make of the BIPM definition of a second.

I calculated a difference of 3Hz. Will post in more detail either on the 'Q&A with ?Rideout' blog, 'Testing Times for Nature's constants' or other appropriate blog.

Akinbo

*You can reply on this thread instead of opening another.

Akinbo, (I don't like the branching off of threads...)

BIPM: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

I agree that there IS a difference, the size of which is significant for a philosopher (understanding leaves no compromise) but not significant to engineer type scientists (pratical rounding off is ok).

The idea is more to create a stable universal time frame where even relativity says there is no such thing.

Clocks are a standard we are holding on to, but clocks are also instruments meant to measure the local rate of spontaneity i.e. time rate. Evidently, the Caesium clocks (CC) are of the first kind, something to hold on to.

These Caesium clocks are very complexe devices containing correction feedback. ... I don't know how much "local spontaneity" it measures. A single clock could be both precise AND true to the local time. But a network of inter-correcting clocks is just a practical standard to be shared by users.

So, "Will you then agree that a Caesium-133 clock at a height 1.52x1011m from the Sun, will beat faster than one at 1.47 x1011m? If so, what do you make of the BIPM definition of a second."

Marcel: Yes, the amount of which (rate) depends on where, away from the Sun, this height is measured (inverse square law), and whether or not it is actually measurable. I mean, the calculation is the simplest part. To conceive the actual experimental comparison gets you right into deep relativity; simultaneity of moments compared, transfer of "reddening" data information, etc. Without the actual experimental protocol figured out, you are doing philosophy, just like me.

:-)

Marcel,

Marcel, thanks for the exchange and for being frank. Actually, I don't think this should be of interest to philosophers alone. It is at the core of how to interpret today's physics in my opinion.

Concerning measurability, I think it is doable. Where there is a will, there is a way. Pound and Rebka were able to measure a difference in frequency over a height of 22.5m! and the Gravity Probe A was able to measure a difference 4.5 parts in 10-10 faster at 10,000km than one on the Earth (translating to about 9192631774Hz instead of 9192631770Hz, an extra 4Hz).

Therefore, a clock at a height in the Sun's gravitational field, 1.52x1011m, which is when the Earth is at aphelion (around July), should run faster than one at 1.47x1011m, when the Earth is at perihelion (around January). The height difference is huge, about 5 x106km and although clocks on Earth are within the Earth's dominant influence, since this terrestrial gravitational influence is common to an Earth-based clock at aphelion and perihelion, such a difference will be due to the Sun's gravitational influence on clocks according to GR. I suspect the BIPM does a general averaging to obtain 9192631770Hz to define the second using Caesium clocks. A more detailed investigation may show a difference between aphelion and perihelion measurement of 3Hz, e.g.9192631768.5 at perihelion and 9192631771.5 at aphelion.

And please talking about clocks, I think it is high time we specifically say electromagnetic clocks. Alan Lowey pointed out somewhere and correctly too that pendulum clocks behave oppositely to electromagnetic ones, running faster in stronger gravity. It also occurred to me that if the Earth were the tip of the hand of a clock, it would appear to be running faster nearer the Sun at perihelion and running slower at aphelion.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

The pendulum is falling. It responds to a differential in the time rate, not to a single local time rate. This differential is stronger closer to Earth. Gravity is just that, a differential of time rate, the slope of which determines the force of gravity.

This effect you are talking about would affect any spontaneous process. Radioactive disintegration has always been taught as impervious to pretty much anything.. Fishback et al. found discrepencies in decay rates .and ...For the last 30 years, Schnoll as been observing the rate of various processes changing with some extraterrestrial influence...

Marcel,

And now for some logical 'blasphemy'...

1. Section 1.5 of the SI brochure admits that altitude difference in a gravitational field cannot be neglected when comparing frequency standards. The definitions of the second (2.1.1.3) is then done with an ulterior motive in mind by not taking their own clause into consideration so that they can use the term, "exactly" in defining light velocity (section 2.1.1.1).

2. It is an accepted fact within the mainstream General relativity establishment, that gravity slows light's passage time, i.e. velocity of light. And experiments such as the Shapiro delay type are forced down our throat to justify what the authority says. Unknown to them this is a poison that will ultimately destroy their position.

3. I therefore now utter the blasphemous statement, and offer the same poisoned chalice to those in authority, hoping they will swallow it in good faith or controvert it on the same premise and logic on which they have founded their position: The Earth being closer to the Sun in January (perihelion) and higher up the tower in the Sun's gravitational field in July (aphelion), the velocity of light on Earth in January is 299792457.9741m/s, slower than the velocity in July, when it will be 299792458.0720m/s, due to the same slowing effect of the Sun's gravity, which must not now be denied haven been offered to others. The average is still 299792458m/s.

Something to refute or accept this summer. Feedback welcome. Before 2020, Bring Back Our Physics#

Akinbo

Akinbo,

IMHO, the speed of light is a RATIO of space to time. We may KNOW that the speed of light should be different but the MEASUREMENT will return c anyhow. This is the real reason why Michelson-Moreley failed. It is a constant in measurement, not in principle, as is relativity. This is physics, not philosophy. Philosophy may deduce the outcome but the experiment, as physics, has the last word.

Marcel,