Alternative Models of Reality

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,

Marcel, not so easy to dismiss...

"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?

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

Are you saying that without minds space cannot exist? If there were no living things or if there were only bacteria in the universe, assuming bacteria don't have minds, will there be space? If not, was there no space in pre-historic times? What do you mean by carrying dimension or do you mean having the attribute of dimension? If so, can something that has attributes which physical objects obey (like Newton's first law of motion) be said not to exist? Can physical objects obey what does not exist? Or do you mean, space is just a principle?

"What substance makes the vacuum"

What is the meaning of substance? Does substance occupy space? Which comes first then, substance or space? Can there be substance without space or the opposite space without substance? Is something (vacuum) made from a substance, not a substance also? Is there a smallest substance?

"Metaphysics..."

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

Akinbo

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

Marcel,

Before going into the Michelson-Morley failure or success (as the case may be), let us be clear on the issues. First MEASUREMENT implies obtaining a value in stated units. RATIO in this case means 'distance covered in metres' to 'time taken to cover the distance between emission and reception'.

Now, I presume a metre in vacuum is a metre in glass. Also, a second in vacuum is a second in glass, going by the experimenter's timepiece. But, the ratio of speed of light is different for vacuum and for glass. So c is not returned 'anyhow'. Its value should be stated. Using c hides many false information, without stating its value and is being used to hoodwink us. The speed of sound is also a RATIO of space to time. We may KNOW that the speed of sound should be different and the MEASUREMENT does not return 'the c for sound' anyhow. And as I mentioned, c is not a constant of measurement, especially when gravity is taking into consideration and the Earth has gravity. As for being 'a constant in measurement, not in principle', hear Einstein, "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity" and "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity". So, what else are we asking for? Or do we know more about Relativity than its author?

In a Michelson-Morley experiment using sound instead of light, a similar result will be obtained, i.e. you cannot detect which direction the Earth is moving by arranging loudspeakers in different directions with a central receiver.

You are 100% correct, this is physics, not philosophy. Philosophy may deduce the outcome but the experiment, as physics, has the last word.But are the experiments being carried out? Are they being dispassionately interpreted? Those are the questions. I have posted elsewhere some of these experiments and I don't know if you want me to repost them to avoid duplication. In summary, I fully agree that physics, the correct physics will have the last word.

Akinbo

All of mathematics is limited by Axiom of Choice. I propose that Axiom of Choice can be extended to include Relativity, and therefore define a model by which ALL of observable physics can be modeled.

Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity

This model potentially describes the foundations under quantum entanglement and related decoherence, time independent photon interactions within fringe patterns, entropy, duality, time, gravity, subatomic particles, deformable space, ...

This is only a foundation for a model quantum causality that allows for building evolving relativity upon a base of causal states. The system has the potential to model diverse physics environments different then our own; but our own as one set of singularities.

The remainder of the thought mapping that has accumulated is found at:

QESdunn

Until corruption can largely be eliminated, I do not want space-time manipulation to be developed. The reason is that then weapons will otherwise be developed to enslave the masses. Manipulating space-time allows for remote manipulation of subatomic particles. Which with advanced application can mean automatically detecting distraction, and causing pain. Not just in self, but in all those whom you care about. Ultimately causing death if acting outside of boundaries.

Eliminate ALL Corruption

retweet: Part of Civil Rights is that Representation is free of Treason http://tinyurl.com/lpqsur5

"It is a constant in measurement, not in principle ..."

No physical phenomenon is real until it is a measured phenomenon ~ John Archibald Wheeler

Tommieee!

What is the meaning of measurement?

If there is no one available to measure a phenomenon, according to your client that phenomenon is not real? And by the way, is there anyone called Thomas Howard Ray, because a little voice tells me that since I have not measured his height and weight, he may not be a real physical phenomenon. Are you real? Or are you one of the ghosts that Jason Wolfe has been warning us about?

Regards,

Akinbo

And further Tom, is it the act of measurement that bestows the value obtained OR the value obtained was already there before measurement?

In another manner of speaking, when you step on a weighing scale to check your weight, is it the scale that gives you your weight or did you have a weight before stepping on the scale?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

" ... when you step on a weighing scale to check your weight, is it the scale that gives you your weight or did you have a weight before stepping on the scale?"

What one means by 'weight' is dependent on the physical conditions where the measurement is made. One does not weigh the same on the moon as on Earth, though both records are valid -- to generalize this principle, Einstein's principle of equivalence comes into play. That is, inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass.

So the amount of inertial acceleration the body exerts against your feet when you step on the scale depends on where the scale is; i.e., the gravitational field in which the measurement is made. You have a weight before the value is measured, though it varies with the reference frame in which you find yourself. The phenomenon of weight is therefore real, yet not absolute -- the absolute reality is the relationship between inertia and gravitation.

Tom,

You always talk like someone with a legal background, I had to crossover to your essay to check your Bio. Difficult to pin down in an argument is how I will describe you. But I admit you bring up some hitherto unconsidered perspectives, that make things interesting!

Are you a "Have", "A Have not" or do you have other surprise category?

Akinbo

Digital physics/philosophy:

Our cognitive framework modelled on the grid of cells where logic relates cells together. Phenomena appear when the grid is synthesized by the productive imagination. Reason (consciousness) is outside computation but it performs computations in the grid.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

DARK MATTER JACKET

To act as the Trampoline in the Universe to make physical sense of Einstein's Theory of Gravity (and to make it work) is one of many Dark Matter's huge tasks.

In 2012, finishing the last Chapter of my book (Small People Revolt,) I wrote: ": "Dark Matter is all around us, filling the Universe, and appears to be the sturdiest and most durable stuff in the Universe... Compressed and condensed, Dark Matter could be made into a huge umbrella which would protect the Earth from being struck by meteor showers."

Based on my observations, calculations and my knowledge of physics, I suspected long ago that Dark Matter plays a very important role in maintaining, activating and protecting the Universe. It was a daring conclusion. I knew I was reaching for the stars or shooting for the moon, for a belief in the existence of Dark Matter was considered controversial at the time. I thought someday I would need to write another book presenting all the circumstantial evidence I found supporting my belief.

I never expected that Nature would provide any direct evidence to aid my case.

But it does. On May 23, 2014, the ScienceDaily, based on an analysis of data provided by the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, announced this Breaking News:

"Failed dwarf galaxy survives galactic collision thanks to full dark-matter jacket." (... Like a bullet wrapped in a full metal jacket, a high-velocity hydrogen cloud hurtling toward the Milky Way appears to be encased in a shell of dark matter, according to a new analysis of data from the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT). Astronomers believe that without this protective shell, the high-velocity cloud (HVC) known as the Smith Cloud would have disintegrated long ago when it first collided with the disk of our Galaxy...)

Holy Smoke! A wisp of cloud - the most fragile entity in the Universe, easily dispersed by the wind or deformed by even the force of breathing - wearing a dark-matter jacket can confront and survive the unimaginable destructive force of a Galaxy. And this Smith Cloud remains intact for millions of years! We all know that the earth is a lot more solid than the cloud.

So my dream of seeing this planet being covered with an umbrella made of Dark Matter, of being able to walk safely, or dance, or sing in the rain of... meteors, turned out to be way too modest!

(einsteinerrs.com/dark-matter.html)