Alternative Models of Reality

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Zeeya,

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

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

Regards,

Eckard

Thomas Ray

John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

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

Regards,

John M

Peter Morgan

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

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

Thomas Ray

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

I think you are dismissing the point.

John Merryman

Tom,

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

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

Regards,

John M

[deleted]

John,

That was too subtle.

The question is, whether or not Zeeya's job is, as you aver it is, to " ... try to figure out where the train did leave the tracks, or else step off the edge into the multiverse" (or into supersymmetry or whatever other part of "mainstream science" you don't like). Why would you suppose that, and what is the moral impact of your decision? Yes, I know that you don't have the power to order journalists around in order to give your beliefs and others a "tactical" advantage. The relevant issue is, what if you did? Would you, like the media barons, judge the news by your own set of beliefs? ... and what does that have to do with science journalism, anyway?

Fact is, science journalism *has* a standard of judgment that separates "mainstream" thinking from speculation, independent of anyone's personal beliefs. Science is rational. However imaginative a theory, it has to meet that test, whether in thought experiment or by direct observation.

It's arguable whether rationalism has a general moral obligation apart from science. Sean Carroll thinks so, however, and I agree with him:

"There are real moral questions that confront us every day, and as a society we're still burdened with a slapdash pre-rational way of answering them. I look forward to the day when there is a consensus theory of secular moral philosophy that forms a basis for democratic discourse ..."

A tactical advantage for independent journalism is democracy for us all -- or as Jefferson put it, "If given a choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter." (from memory, so the quote may not be verbatim.)

And this, from a man who was regularly pilloried in the early American free press.

All best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

(reposted in correct thread)

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

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

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

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

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

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

John Merryman

Tom,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John,

Why don't you just answer my straightforward question?

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

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

Regards,

John M

Peter Morgan

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

Thomas Ray

John,

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

I would contend that modeling time as a vector from past to future, is a metaphor, in that a spatial concept is being used to model a dynamic process.

What is metaphor, but relating similar effects, concepts, etc. and seeing what the correspondence can teach us. If you were to completely remove that as a tool, where would science, or knowledge in general, be?

As for leading edge, it seems to contend that all is information and energy seems to be left back in the 19th century. Where will our advanced civilization be, when the fossil fuels run low?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"What is metaphor, but relating similar effects, concepts, etc. and seeing what the correspondence can teach us."

John, a metaphor is correspondence of language to imagination. A scientific theory is correspondence of language to physical phenomena. Though both relations are recursive, only the latter leaves a measurable physical trace. That is what we call a rational correspondence.

Can a non-rational correspondence be true? Yes. Can a non-rational correspondence be scientific knowledge? No.

Best,

Tom

Eckard Blumschein

John M,

"nothing can exceed the speed of light" ??

The speed with which two wavefronts, that are propagating in opposite directions, increase their distance is 2c.

I would rather say, the speed of energy propagation cannot exceed the value c. Light propagates with from emitter to the receiver. Let's clarify the question what does the speed of light refer to?

It does not refer to the emitter alone, not to the receiver alone, not to an observer, not to an absolute space. Read my endnotes.

Eckard

John Merryman

Tom,

You haven't convinced me that blocktime isn't a product of the imagination and if it is, then so are the myriad extrapolations of this dynamic geometry, such as much of current cosmology.

Time is a measure of action, such as the rate waves pass a marker. Giving this dynamic process some form of linear extension is quite useful, because it allows us to mentally order sequences of events, but it is still imaginative. You cannot physically have sequential events co-exist. As the old saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Now I can draw a series of pictures, or write a book, where one page is about making the cake and the next is about eating it and these pages in the book do co-exist. Theorists like books, but that doesn't mean reality is a book. The energy content of that cake goes into propelling you. As another old saying goes, "You are what you eat." The wave that hits the beach no longer exists, because its energy content is scattered.

Frankly it seems silly to me that I have to keep making this same basic point over and over again, but I do realize how much of current theory depends on it not being true, so I will just have to keep banging my head on this wall.

Regards,

John M

« Previous Page Next Page »