Alternative Models of Reality

Pete,

At least we know the elephant's name is not Euclid. jrc

Here you go, Akinbo. Caslav Brukner is working on a tabletop experiment to show whether there exists a general relativistic notion of time, foundationally:

"So here is the experiment proposed by Brukner and his team: Imagine you have a particle that carries its own wristwatch--some sort of evolving internal degree of freedom, such as its spin, that has some repetitive behavior that can serve as a clock. Usually when you send particles through a double-slit experiment, the slits are arranged side-by-side, right and left, at the same height. But what if you send that clock through a wall in which the two slits are arranged so that one slit is higher up--and thus in a different gravitational potential--than the other? General relativity says that the clock travelling along the lower path will tick slower than the clock passing through the upper slit. So far, so good for Einstein.

But here's the kicker: quantum complementarity says that the clocks can only continue to behave as waves if there is no significant time dilation effect between the two paths. That's because, if there is a discernible time dilation, you would be able to look at the clock and deduce which path it had taken, based on whether it seemed to have ticked faster or slower en route. 'This vanishing of the interference will really be a proof that there was a general relativistic notion of time involved,' says Brukner.

"The experiment pits two conceptions of time--the quantum mechanical and the general relativistic--head to head. On one side, the double-slit experiment puts the clock into a quantum superposition--a blurry confusion of multiple identities. We should not know which path it took during the experiment, and the time shown on the clock is undefined. This is in contrast with general relativity in which time has an objective status: it is well-defined at single points. 'In this experiment the time shown by the clock becomes quantum mechanically indefinite, that is, before it is measured it has no predetermined value,' says Brukner."

I predict the experiment *will* fail to show a general relativstic notion of time. The result won't militate against general relativity, however -- for the reason I gave you earlier of the difference between a classically continuous beam of light and a quantized beam of light. Think of the "bent stick" optical effect when viewing a stick half submerged in the water; the light travels faster through the air than through the water, which is what causes the optical effect -- now we know, of course, that light through the air is also quantized by air molecules, only to a lesser extent than through the water. The relative difference in speed gives us an idea of the constant speed of light; in a vacuum, with no interference of medium that absorbs and emits radiation, light speed is always measured at a constant value.

Now -- if gravity interferes with the speed of light, as you claim -- remember this: gravity orients in but one direction, toward the center of mass. That means the acceleration of the gravity field is always vertical to the plane. There is no horizontal accceleration.

In the Brukner team tabletop experiment, the constant-speed beam of light necessarily aimed at slits in a direction horizontal to the plane, assumes that the higher-up slit of the vertical plane is subject to less vertical acceleration of gravity than the lower slit. With this assumption, the time differential between two positions vertical to the plane -- (as with the bent stick effect) -- of light falling in the gravity field should tell us that absent of quantum absorption-emission effects in a massive medium, the pure state of elapsed time should not allow a "clock" analog of differential times between the slits, such that we can observe and read the clock.

We will always be able to read the differential as a classical effect horizontal to the plane, though (my claim) -- no matter how high up the vertical -- because there is no horizontal acceleration, as we've known since Galileo. A failure to see the predicted interference fringe merely puts the data point outside the range of classical observation, quantizing the light clocks by fiat, not by any principle of relative motion. One can always raise the slit to get the desired result.

Therefore: general relativity, which describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime, need not be quantized (see, e.g., Petkov ) for special relativity to hold in the limit of uniform motion, the universal standard by which we measure time.

To me, this experiment is just another case of quantum theory "proving" its prior assumptions (quantum superposition, nonlocality, observer-created reality) by loading the dice.

All best,

Tom

Akinbo,

Hopefully our delegates don't start talking about inflationary cosmology, age of the universe, dark energy, etc, or there will be some whispers.

Tom,

That does sound interesting, but problematic. Your description starts off talking about particles, then light and in the link, they mention using molecules! How do you get a clock on a light particle and wouldn't anything with internal degrees of action to use as a clock be classical anyway? I would imagine the result(using light) would be the interference pattern would show the effects of some degree of gravitational lensing, just not sure what. Would the slower wave be redshifted, or magnified? Something(intuition) tells me the terms "slow" and "fast" don't apply. That such concepts are an artifact of thinking in terms of time. Rather the stronger gravity field would make the lower light "denser" ie. magnified, while the higher light would be less dense and this would actually be redshifted....

Just speculation, as usual. I haven't run the experiment.

Regards,

John M

JC.

Agreed, The elephant's 3D+t and curvy, but only one real t, the rest are fake!

John,

"How do you get a clock on a light particle and wouldn't anything with internal degrees of action to use as a clock be classical anyway?"

Yes, that's the point of the set-up. Clocks are always classical. " ... you have a particle that carries its own wristwatch--some sort of evolving internal degree of freedom, such as its spin, that has some repetitive behavior that can serve as a clock."

What the experimenters are trying to show is that if the upper clock fails to have wavelike (classical) properties, its time (what would be a reading on the "clockface") is in a state of quantum superposition, and has no particular value unless measured. Because we know the wavelike state of the lower slit, if we get no wavelike information from the upper slit corresponding to the gravity time-differential predicted by general relativity, the upper state is not locally real.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

I've been thinking (however questionably) for some time, that the ambiguity that breeds all these 'red herrings' simply evolves from an instinctive desire to arrive at an understanding of whatever natural relationship must exist for light velocity being *that* specific velocity, from the direction of nil extension of time up to an equivalent 'c' extension. Given that any velocity less than 'c' is relative, a ground up approach would itself be relative.

I'm not sorted out enough to be confident in conveying the idea, but it seems we would have better definition, if not also results, by taking an approach to the 'rate' of time extension from instantaneous down to equivalent 'c'. jrc

Tom, Peter, John and don't check out just yet James,

It is certain we need an expert.

Tom,

Without exception, ALL the experiments and postulates of Special relativity were not carried out in a straight line! According to GR, no line on earth is straight! Maybe only slightly curved but definitely not straight. And there was no quantum proposition as at the time SR and GR were formulated.

Then you say Clocks are always classical... What does this mean? My Wrist watch is digital and is based on quantum principles.

Then you say, "Now -- if gravity interferes with the speed of light, as you claim". I am not claiming anything. If you check my post down below on Sep. 10, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT, I mentioned that I am blogging from the unenlightened part of the world. Who am I to claim anything! See below, what Einstein and Penrose from the enlightened world claim, not me.

Peter,

I am not pointing out anything, nor whether time is absolute or not. I am trying to discover using reductio ad absurdum type arguments where the truth lies. All but one of the views must be capable of being reduced to absurdity.

Now, here is what an expert view says, Roger Penrose in The Emperor's new Mind (not verbatim):

Light is a time-varying electric field giving rise to a time-varying magnetic field, and this would in turn give rise to a time-varying electric field, etc. (The term 'give rise' may interest John Merryman as it connotes causality). This effect would propagate through space and this speed can be measured. This is the outcome of the work of Faraday and Maxwell by which we now refer to light as an electromagnetic wave.

Then on pg.272, "Clocks run very slightly slow in a gravitational field, as Einstein maintained, ... light signals are indeed bent by the sun and slightly delayed y the encounter - again well-tested general relativity effects".

We know light adopts the clock of water to do its time-varying, and does same with glass, hence light speed is different in both media. The morale is that light has no clock of its own. To buttress this, Einstein's theory shows that light similarly adopts the clock of the gravitational field in which an experiment is carried out. Experiments that determined the value as 299792458m/s, the Michelson-Morley experiment and all others to confirm SR were done on the earth, and the earth has a gravitational field!

Regards,

Akinbo

Peter,

I love your proposal on the new era. To show my support I have downloaded your essay paper and will be spending time with it, to think. I would be interested to learn more about your discrete fields concept, but I'm sure they are independent concepts from my own.

You are correct in that the spacetime itself contracts, so what the buoys attached string is doing is quite inconsequential. I find no paradox here, and it does predict many things and in fact answers a lot of open questions from unexplained experimental evidence. I'll be writing a paper to address these issues in the near future, but for now I'm focusing on my paper for a proposed thermodynamic extension to GR. Solving the 'galactic rotation curve flatness' and 'excessive redshift of the expanding universe' gets my top priority for now. Entanglement, double-slit, and superposition will have to wait.

As for your disagreement 1), I anticipated that, and my addendum argument #1 addressed that exactly. True, no mass can go the speed of light, but the ship was just an analogy for a wave/photon, depending on what one is arguing. The ship was used just to better visualize yourself in a photons reference frame, nothing more.

For disagreement 2), I would contend that without external interaction you could still measure your own clock. A photons trip from point A to point B, no matter the distance, will take exactly zero time (assuming empty space) in its own reference frame. We as experimenters can never use the photons clock to carry out any experiment, so we never see or measure things from that perspective. That is exactly the point of my essay paper. Just because you can't do it, personally or experimentally, doesn't mean there is no effect in the photons own reference frame. There are some experiments that can only be performed in the human mind.

thanks for your comments.

Steve.

Tom,

(First taking into account Eric Reiter's experiment on light quantization.)

To the extent gravity affects progress through the two slits differently, it is because the light is traveling a curved path, so the quantity of light going through the top slit is on the outside of the curve, so the same quantity is spread out, ie. in more of a super position, while the light through the bottom slit is more concentrated. Then how it is absorbed by the atomic structure of the detecting screen would seem to be a more concentrated pattern from the bottom hole and a more diffuse pattern from the top hole. Since they would essentially take the same time, around the curve, any "clock" would be irrelevant, so no "collapse of superpositions."

Just speculation...

Regards,

John M

Interesting paper on the effectiveness and limits of math

"And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality, and definitely not the "miracle" that some scientists have marveled at. Einstein, a mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marveled at the power of mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?""

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html#jCp

I'm no longer allowed to post at Peter Woit's blog, so I thought I'd post the most recent comment to the above link here:

"Bob Jones says:

September 12, 2013 at 6:50 pm

String theory is not mathematics, I agree with you about that. But it's still *mathematical* in the sense that most of the time string theorists do not even attempt to postulate new physics. Instead, string theorists are generally interested in conceptual questions in quantum gravity and applications to formal problems in quantum field theory. They're not coming up with new laws of physics but deducing consequences from the theories that are already known to be relevant for describing nature."

So basically it's thirty years of reducto ad absurdum and nobody gets it?

Regards,

John M

Dear Peter,

I agree with you above that Nature is unified.

Comment on Q.1. The answers will have to be two fold. The propagation velocity AND the generally relative nature of velocity. It is in regard of the first that I have been discussing our measured value 299792458m/s in the earth's "free" space vacuum. I have been asking what effect a change in the earth's gravitational field strength will have on this value. Then, as you have a keen interest in optics, plasmas, dielectrics, etc you should be able to tell us whether if the earth's magnetic field strength changes, whether given the common equation B = ВµH, whether the permeability value of the earth's free space will remain the same? From this, given that c = в€љ(1/ВµОµ) what effect will this have on the value of light velocity of 299792458m/s? If the magnetic field strength on planet X is different and they measure their own value of c in their free space, will it not be arrogant to say our own value is good and their is bad?

Comment on Q.2. The question of what is absolute and what is relative between length, clocks and velocity, as I indicated in binary format, will naturally be deduced when we know Q.1. So when you say, "In a good vacuum or plasma", what is good and what is nearly so? How "good" is the earth's free space for you to claim n =1? n = 1 suggests all light velocity must be relative to the one in your good earth free space, irrespective that it is 'polluted' by the terrestrial gravitational and electromagnetic fields, which must also be assumed to be eternally unchanging since the earth was formed long ago? That is the earth's gravitational field strength, has not changed, nor its radius, r , or its mass, M nor its magnetic field strength,H! The earth must be the perfect place to live.

Regards,

Akinbo

John M,

Maybe Abbott's promised tutorial will exemplify the "Ineffectiveness of Mathematics"? I wonder if his EE students will need it.

Eckard

Akinbo,

That your digital wristwatch outputs a discrete value doesn't mean that it operates by the quantum principle of superposition. The values on the dial of your analog clock completely correspond to the digital output, as a continuous record of elapsed time.

"ALL the experiments and postulates of Special relativity were not carried out in a straight line! According to GR, no line on earth is straight! Maybe only slightly curved but definitely not straight."

Mathematically, a straight line is a special case for a curve. Light always travels (by Fermat's principle of least action) in the straightest line that it can. A light ray parallel to the Earth's plane travels straight out into space; Earth's gravity is far too weak to affect its path. In the case of Einstein lensing, however, a light ray traveling around a very strong gravity field, such as the sun, will curve ever so slightly so that the information the ray reveals about its source appears slightly displaced in space from the real source of radiation. The corrections you're worried about don't matter, except at relativistic distances and speeds. Otherwise, Newtonian physics works just fine; time and space can be treated as if they were absolutely flat and straight.

"And there was no quantum proposition as at the time SR and GR were formulated."

There certainly was. And it was due to Einstein himself, through his work in such things as Brownian motion, and the photelectric effect. See Einstein, 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."

Best,

Tom

John,

The notion that clocks are irrelevant is equivalent to collapse of superposition. Time drops out of the quantum mechanical equations.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I realize this cross references GR and QM, but does that mean "blocktime" is collapsed to a point?

In other words you referred to the scale of time we see looking out across the cosmos as the vector of time and collapsing the superposition is measuring the location of the particle at a point...

Wouldn't that mean you are also collapsing the measurement of space as well? Considering space is "collapsed" by gravity and lots of particles are "measuring" each other.

This going back to my previous observation that quanta(of energy) are not necessarily point particles, but logically expand to fill their container. So measuring them is a way to confine the container. (As would balancing them with an opposite energy.)

So essentially the detector screen on the two slit experiment does collapse their superposition, but depending on the setup, will affect how it is collapsed.

Regards,

John M

Eckard,

They would seem to be in his camp, but he would be providing ammunition for their future.

Regards,

John M

" ... does that mean 'blocktime' is collapsed to a point?"

A plane, not a point.

And since there are as many points in any plane as there are in the entire universe, one should be able to see that all instantaneous events in the block time universe are included.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Is that the plane of the present, separating past from future?

Regards,

John M

Why do youink the present separates past and future, John?

Tom,

That might be a more appropriate way of describing it.

Wouldn't this present as plane contradict the idea of no simultaneity?

I know one is QM and the other is GR, but doesn't that raise the issue of them both being models of reality and thus not a problem if their various approximations conflict, as opposed to both being parts of some platonic super-structure, creating deep metaphysical angst that all the parts don't fit together?

(Yes, physical present as plane, whether connecting or dividing past from future, is a rough model, not some elemental aspect of reality. A plane has no depth....)

Regards,

John M

John,

"Wouldn't this present as plane contradict the idea of no simultaneity?"

No, but one would need understand the idea of covariance to get a proper understanding of relative instantaneous values.

Best,

Tom

John C,

Ground up is OK, but solid foundations are much harder to find. I'm not sure I grasp your thought process but think I know what you mean, and I agree, all is relative.

But I've found a far simpler solution works. Come down 6 storeys with me to bedrock and check it out.

Lets assume the ions we find everywhere in a vacuum, the foundation of matter, each has 1). A rest frame, 2). The job of keeping em fluctuations going and 3) Do so at one speed, (relative to the frame of each) whatever the relative 'arrival' speed. We'll call the emission speed 'c'. Each bunches of particles at rest relatively then forms a 'discrete field' (model - DFM).

Now play with that scenario in your mind for a bit and see if you can stop it resolving every single anomaly and paradox in physics. If you have any dynamic visualisation skills I predict you will fail completely. But careful where you point it; all confusion and stupidity melts away. (But it won't go through the deep shifting sand of oblivion the heads are buried in!)

As you say all velocity less than c is relative, but so is c itself. You can't measure something without interacting and changing it's speed to max c.

Let me know how you get on. My last 3 essays build it up to above ground level.

Best wishes.

Tom.

Ooops, what a Freudian slip! Those shifting sands of oblivion meant I forgot my own name for a moment!

Peter

A warped plane then.

OK Pete, I see what your meaning of discrete field implies. That is pretty much how I visualize things, and why it's so difficult to keep any kind of generality of spacetime from coming apart at the particles. A solution to the problem of how to account mathematically for a quantity of energy precipitating into a rest mass having a continuous variation of density which would be in accord with inverse square law, yet not reaching infinite density at center of mass ( and consuming the entire energy quantity ) can be achieved by firstly defining inertia in general terms. Rather than an operation between two masses, what is it about mass that exhibits inertia that is essentially the same thing for any mass? If the answer is that some portion of the energy will exist at a density that is proportional to the total energy quantity, then that proportion would be true of any mass. That density would exist at constant density in a central volume and thus prescribe a finite quantity of energy and the greater part of the energy quantity is distributed outward in a continually decreasing density to a limit density of coherence. That distribution can be plotted along a radius as an exponential function of deceleration from 'c' at the outer limit down to nil extension of time at the horizon of the relative inertial density core, so distribution of energy quantity to density variation in a spherical volume resolves as an exponential root of 'c'.

My thinking about why light velocity is that specific velocity is pretty vague, but we tend to see it as an upper limit we have arrived at. On the other hand, it is the velocity where spacetime becomes distinguishable, where the electric and magnetic field strengths are indistinguishable, where acceleration stops. From there on down to relative rest, things become differentiable, space becomes Euclid Square, time becomes Then and Now, electric charge becomes select. That's a specimen in a jar, but I might be getting to where I can hit the jar. jrc

Hi John,

Good points to raise. Re http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html :

1) "And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality":

Clearly regularities, i.e. information categories, information relationships and information balance, exist at all levels of reality. But mathematical symbols are best for representing the regularities found in simple fundamental reality: I think with more complex reality it can get too difficult and unwieldy to attempt to precisely represent the regularities with mathematical symbols, or even to uncover the regularities in the first place. Recognizing and representing the regularities of simple fundamental reality with mathematical symbols (law of nature equations) has allowed us to send rockets to the moon, and build modern bridges.

But clearly, this fundamental underlying regular structure of reality (which we represent with mathematical symbols) is not as extensive as the mathematical extremists would have us believe - reality does NOT consist of all possible structures: reality is more like a selection made out of all possible structures.

2) "Einstein, a mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marvelled at the power of mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" ":

Einstein's error seems to be this: "human thought...is independent of experience". Human thought is NOT independent of experience; human thought is NOT independent of the "objects of reality": human thought is MADE OUT OF the "objects of reality". Clearly, this is why "mathematics...is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality". Mathematics merely symbolizes and generalizes the basic subjective "objects of reality" like information categories, information relationships and information balance. I think it is clear that even the supposedly-Platonic numbers are nothing more than a type of information category relationship - i.e. they are somewhat similar in structure to "laws of nature".

3) Mathematical symbols can be used to represent aspects of reality, especially fundamental reality. But the nature of reality is not a mathematical universe, but a universe of information, categories, relationships and balance (AND choice). I.e. reality is more like a living thing than a dead mathematical structure.

What do you think: a living universe or a dead universe??

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,

I think a more immediate issue isn't just whether we can effectively use symbols for concepts and effectively manipulate them, rather than just using symbols for phonetic vocalizations, as with natural languages, but how belief systems also quickly come to dominate how they are to be used.

One of my main arguments here is that time is not the vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past, thus making it similar to temperature. Such that time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. Now we have a brain, divided into two hemispheres, that reflects this relationship, with a linear, time-like left brain and a scalar(non-linear), thermostat-like right brain.

Instead we are forced to believe nature is composed of a three dimensional space-vector system, with a narrative vector added on, because as mobile points of reference, that is how we experience reality. Meanwhile the whole side of our brain built for non-linear thought processing gets dismissed as intuition and emotion, for not recognizing this religion. Intuition does incorporate new information. We still see the sun moving across the sky, but can intuitively understand it is the earth rotating the opposite direction. Baseball players and physicists have different intuitive responses. So now we have spent generations pursuing reducto ad absurdum arguments and ending up in multiworlds, because physicists can never be wrong.

Regards,

John M

John RC,

"difficult to keep...spacetime from coming apart at the particles." Impossible I'd say. 'Spacetime' means quite different things to different people. After all the nonsensical interpretations that many still cling to Einstein ended up precisely where Minkowski started;

"not 'space' but infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion" This gives the discrete inertial system or 'field' model (DFM). The particle interactions then divide them.

I could't penetrate far through the haze into your sample jar, so best to offer some simplifications which I think are compatible with that and the above.

Inertia is simply gyroscopic. It's not then bizarre finding a ton weight accelerating under G at the same rate as a pea. Imagine a ton of spinning gyroscopes fixed to a framework. Then beside it one tiny peas shaped gyroscope. Which is easiest for you to accelerate by pushing? Correct, the tiny one. So why do we expect gravity to do the opposite and accelerate the big one faster?

That shown the fundamental error sin all our assumptions. Errors we've become so familiar with that most are unable to challenge them. I did and a very simple model emerged, but it seems most can't so confusion remains.

If you wish to see the model you only need to read the essays. The limit on propagation speed of EM waves is then simple and relates to minimum wavelength gamma, which is at optical breakdown mode plasma density. (I'll post the link to the paper on that if you wish).

Best wishes

Peter

PS. It will make perfect sense to you when you read it but if you don't then also 'rehearse' it the whole dynamic will evaporate as our neural networks don't have a pre-set default mode to 'hang it on'.

Akinbo,

Light does c through all matter systems wrt the rest frame of the matter. Simple as that. The G field only then has a secondary affect because it affects particle density. That resolves Q1.;

"The concept speed is inherently relative, but ONLY relative to the matter it propagates in (including lenses)." These are then local 'discrete frames' or fields.

Q2; What is absolute? Time rate locally, NOT emitted signals universally. Propagation speed, but again LOCALLY wrt the propagating medium only. Space, which may be quantized, is then logically modelled as a fluid, or multiple sets of two frames (2-fluid plasma).

You ask; What is a 'good' vacuum? You should know a perfect vacuum cannot exist. A good vacuum has insignificant massive particles at n=>1. It will always still have free electrons at n=1 but though their coupling constant is high they are of course 'invisible' spectroscopically. If there are a lot and they are blowing across the light path they'll 'drag' the light (actually "rotate the optical axis of re-emissions" is the more precise description). This is the well known kSZ effect, also giving elliptical polarity and Faraday Rotation (IFR), all 'anomalous' under current theoretical assumptions.

Make sense?

Peter

Tom,

I agree SR's maths may be 'complete'. But it's clear is that it doesn't completely describe nature. SR as finally defined by Einstein however, reduced to the postulates, does so perfectly, with the soupcon of uncertainty inherent in the 'local' quantum mechanism and LT.

All empirical evidence supports that definition of SR. It does not support the assumed mathematical description beyond that. If you think you can suggest some evidence that does so please specify it and I'll show you where the wrong assumption lies.

Peter

Pete,

Actually I'd like to have a link to your papers, it looks like what you are developing is what gets too complex for me after the rationalization of the volumetric determination for rest mass energy distribution in what I've modeled.

Beg pardon... the brief synopsis of method for determining distribution to density variation was just that. It starts with a simplistic (intentionally) model that is 'ballpark' parametric to establish density values for magnetic response, then G as a 'c' proportion lower density which is assumed to be the limit of cohesive coherence of energy, a 'c' proportion greater density than magnetic with the characteristic of translating electric response, and another 'c' proportion greater density with an assumed characteristic of

inelasticity as the kinetic particle boundary. The parametric particle volume is then rationalized to a 'real' base radius by theory terms applied to a formulation of Coulomb's Law, then the exponential radial set of density difference equations are applied. The differentiation comes from the inertial density in relation to the kinetic density. If inertial > kinetic, the result is particulate, if inertial < kinetic the electrical density allows the charge to expand to fill it's container, in this manner the EM spectral range is equated the same way mass accumulation in particulate matter is equated.

In the range of particulate matter (the model produces a rationale for an upper limit of stable mass quantity at 263.11 amu ) the difference between inertial and kinetic density, and the volumetric requirement of energy quantity at a constant density in the central core, results in the same "Incredible Shrinking Area of a Surface of a Volume" that Tom keeps trying to get people to understand is what is meant by 'curvature of space'. It's not like GR removes the field from the volume, it just uses acceleration instead of force to define it's size.

If I get around to dusting it off, I'll be looking at what appears to be an optimal differential that results in some mass quantities and the volumes those quantities prescribe, having a greater propensity than other quantity values. It's been 26 years and nobody but Reagan's SDI was interested, the best I could do as an amateur was the make sure that D.O.D. knew first that I was tinkering on something so nobody could use it to sneak into DARPA.

Your own efforts in treating discrete fields in aggregate gets into a complexity that naturally must treat inertia as an operation between masses. The resemblance to all those studies Einstein made of Brownian motion is what always dissuades me from attempting the math. But the over-riding conclusion is that in aggregate, domains develop and in relation to any dominant gravitational frame, gram molecular weight is one thing but size matters.

NASA has some very interesting results from Voyager's transition to deep space you might want to look at. jrc

p.s. I really have to get started on a noisy wheel bearing.

John,

'Domain size matters' Right. Space 's' moving within larger space 'S'. Always a local background reference frame for defining the concept 'speed', but one that moves within it's own larger background.

This is the hierarchical structure of Truth Function Logic I refer to in my previous essay. They are written as conceptual so called 'toy' models as mathematics can't expose the logical dynamics. In sequence the last 3 are here (all top 10 finalists, but overlooked as they don't use current assumptions). I've just posted the fqxi links to Petcho, but here are the less abridged versions;

2020 Vision

Much Ado About Nothing

The Intelligent Bit

An optics based fuller picture is here, finally explaining why reflections from a moving mirror in a vacuum do c wrt the vacuum frame not the mirror; arXiv;

Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

When you've waded through those ask for the LT derivation link and any other areas such as the cyclic cosmology emergent. The mechanism is dead simple. Unravelling all the present complex confusion is less so at first.

Best of luck. Do report back with any questions or comments.

Peter

Pete

Thanks for the links. I'll put on my waders but give me some time. I think you will like what NASA obtained, there was an abrupt and sustained increase in plasma pressure that can be precisely pegged in Voyager's transition out of the solar system's gravitational 'bubble'. When I read the piece I thought it was right up your alley. jrc

Lorraine,

To continue that thought, there are lots of different ways to think about all the enormous complexities of life and it doesn't take ten billion dollars to explore the possibilities.

One of the basic points I keep trying to raise about numbers and simple addition is that when we add, we are adding sets and ending up with larger sets, not the contents of the sets. Say when we add 4 apples and 6 apples, we are taking the two sets and creating a set of 10 apples. If we actually added the apples, we would have a jar of apple sauce.

This seems like a very obvious and nit-picky point, but I think it is part of the thinking that leads physics to currently trying to say everything is discrete.

Think about it in terms of the body; All our organs and cells and thoughts and relationships and physical context, etc. add up to ourselves as a whole person. Then when we step back, there is no real, distinct line where one person ends and the next begins. Yes, we can draw lines, but they are more like horizon lines. More a matter of selective perception. We all exist as each other's context, have the same dna, energy, often share thoughts, etc. The lines we draw are as subjective as we are.

Now on the other hand, when everything is its own entity and we keep looking at smaller and smaller scales, we eventually get down to the quantum level of distinct objects. Even though the lines between them seem pretty fuzzy and there are statistical waves and super positions and non-locality and entanglement and all those other factors that make them seem connected, we are not fooled! We know if we just keep looking and poking, we will find true clarity of distinction and all the parts will be truly separate, even if we have no theory of how they all work together.

We need distinctions, but we also need connections. Like painting a picture, we don't want all the colors to run together, but we still need them to make connections.

' Shut up and calculate" is not even philosophy, but belief, if you can't examine how the factors and functions operate.

Regards,

John M

John,

You're right. It predicted Voyager findings, against doctrine. The latest VLBA findings are entirely consistent with the model, confirming plasma refraction. Those are on top of the 20 I listed for Tom. But it seems even in science, when we weigh up irrefutable evidence and logic against established beliefs its beliefs that win every time. It's an interesting insight to human nature and neural networks. Just a shame about all those billions really!

I look forward to your comments. Don't hold back on any flaws you may find.

Peter

Pete

A clarification, please on the 2020 article. Right off you state axiomatically that the 'speed of the wave' is resultant of the refraction index. This is consistent with Fitzgerald whose contraction is of the wave, not time. The way I read the various experimental methods which are cited as evidence that 'light slows down in a medium', is not Lorentzian. The velocity of propagation is not altered, it is still celeritus. The wave contraction due to (pardon) quantum effects in and of the medium, computes as a lower velocity that does not really distinguish between the speed of the wave and the velocity of propagation. That ambiguity is inherent to LT, Lorentz packed the same amount of electric charge into a smaller volume and declared density equals mass. If you measure the strength of the charge by inverse square law, why would it behave as an average density of charge within a smaller volume?

The shorter wave is still propagating its volumetric change at the same velocity along the same timeline, through the media. It's extension physically of that volumetric dimension along the timeline is reduced, not the volume of it's wave event, nor it's constituent energy quantity. It's more analogous to compression than to velocity.

I'm trying to digest a bit at a time, so don't take me too seriously. jrc

John M,

My guess is that what you are trying to say is something like:

- we have current knowledge of fundamental reality represented/symbolised by law of nature equations. These equations don't necessarily imply any further equations.

- to go further than these equations you need a philosophy of what these equations mean. For example, if you philosophise that a multiverse exists, you will create a new set of equations (consistent with the original law of nature equations) to represent your ideas, and then look for evidence that might confirm these new equations.

- that is, to progress the equations, you definitely need a philosophy.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,

A life without a philosophy is a fish without water. Even physicists have one, they just can't measure it and part of their philosophy is that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Silly, but true.

Regards,

John M