Alternative Models of Reality

pjackson

Tom,

So if reality and relativity aren't compatible you're quite happy? It's not the 'coupling constant' that matters here, but the fact that in a dielectric medium (particle system) c is measured in the frame of that (local) inertial system.

So in optics, an experiment on the Space Station (ISS) with a Sagnac ring gyro (which they use) or cloud chamber gives the same speed wrt the chamber/medium frame as it does on Earth where the inertial system is in a significantly co-moving frame. That is as specified in both Galilean and Special Relativity.

But any observer can only validly measure ONE at a time as a 'propagation speed' (c). On the ISS, if he sees a flash across the surface of Earth, he can then calculate it in the Earth frame, so will find c. If he's silly enough to expect it to ALSO be c in the ISS rest frame he'll be disappointed, as it'd apparently work out to c+/-v. Non (SR)'propagation speed', is simply a different case, not using proper time, so only apparent and arbitrary.

The only other case then is of any light changing frame, which is where the LT is implemented. Did you read my paper on the quantum optics mechanism producing the LT curve by modulating local c?

Apart from 'prior assumption' what is wrong with that simple logic, which removes any apparent paradox and stops the rot and slowly eroding support for SR? I need to find some consistent logic or scientific method in your thinking.

Sorry about the threads, I keep going straight for the box not the reply button.

The broken link was to an excellent resume. Try this; Higgs analysis.

Best wishes.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter, the problem is that you are arbitrarily linking the standard model to relativity. If it were that easy, we would have a theory of quantum gravity.

"Did you read my paper on the quantum optics mechanism producing the LT curve by modulating local c?"

Probably, but I don't even have to read it again to know that the above statement is wrong. The Lorentz transformation is a rigid transformation; i.e., the speed of light is the same for all observers. One can't divide local from nonlocal in a classical theory, because all physics is local.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

"James, try and define "pre-existing.""

There are simpler and more fundamental quantitites in terms of which 'B' may be expressed. Those simpler and more fundamental quantities pre-exist 'B'.

There are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which 'A' may be expressed. No quantity pre-exists 'A'. 'A' pre-exists all quantities that may be expressed in terms of 'A'.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

What differentiates A from B?

James Putnam

"What differentiates A from B?"

There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

Fascinating view. To me the final arbiter is nature. I reject the SM and it's relevance, yet you keep returning to it. By doing so you will never see what I propose. If you wish to that is.

Nature is the judge, but do you elevate 'theory' above nature? Theories are conflicting descriptions none (bar none) of which yet fully describe nature. 'Judging' theory against other theory is then scientifically irrelevant.

Try this; Quantizatons of energy ('wave parcels' if you wish) exist and absorb and emit light with or without the SM. This is universal across all science including in classical optics.

Special Relativity had to derive local c, so had to ban the option of ONE SINGLE (so 'absolute') background inertial system (ether frame). I agree that was correct. But it never had to ban local frames in motion wrt others. That just got tagged on because all assumed space was 'empty'. (I assume you're not claiming it is!).

So understanding of nature improved by exploration, as it always will, but the theory has never been updated to match! (neither was QM!). "Adapt or die" applies to everything. It does neither theory any harm to be updated, in fact it strengthens SR as QM falls into line if it changes to suit! In fact the SM will have to do the same and unification emerges. (and how else would you remove the E=m/c^2 problem?).

This is precisely the MORE local more REAL answer Einstein was looking for, and is precisely what he described conceptually in 1952; ('infinitely many... small spaces 's' moving within and wrt larger space 'S'.') It then meets every requirement of his 'unified field theory' (and relativistic QG). Why is that 'wrong'?

Sure a whole lot of people would have to let go of their unfalsified beliefs about geometrical 'interpretation' to allow the LOCALLY REAL one. I think that is the only real problem. It is simply a belief issue - belonging to religion. You've yet offered not an iota of evidence that analysis is wrong!

Peter

Thomas Ray

"This is precisely the MORE local more REAL answer Einstein was looking for, and is precisely what he described conceptually in 1952; ('infinitely many... small spaces 's' moving within and wrt larger space 'S'.') It then meets every requirement of his 'unified field theory' (and relativistic QG). Why is that 'wrong'?"

Because you are asking for a "more perfect" explanation of a theory that is already mathematically complete.

"Sure a whole lot of people would have to let go of their unfalsified beliefs about geometrical 'interpretation' to allow the LOCALLY REAL one."

All physics is local.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

James, an important mathematical theorem, called the Jordan curve theorem, divides the plane into two parts -- one finite, enclosed by the area of a curve, the other infinite.

You've tried to do the same with physics -- you have a well behaved finite part, which you wish to say is irreducible, and the rest is infinite. Why won't that work? -- the world is finite. You have no relation between A and B, only the sound of one hand clapping.

James Putnam

Tom quoting me: "There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

Retracing the history behind my statement:

Me: "...kilograms is a defined unit. It is a defined unit because it is defined in terms of pre-existing units."

Tom: "James, try and define "pre-existing.""

Me: "There are simpler and more fundamental quantitites in terms of which 'B' may be expressed. Those simpler and more fundamental quantities pre-exist 'B'.

There are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which 'A' may be expressed. No quantity pre-exists 'A'. 'A' pre-exists all quantities that may be expressed in terms of 'A'."

Tom: "What differentiates A from B?"

Me: "There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

Each of my statements is correct physics.

The following is assumed to refer to my position that only length and time are proper indefinable properties:

Tom: "You have no relation between A and B, only the sound of one hand clapping."

There was no relation expressed. However, going along with what I think you are getting at:

If A is an object's acceleration and B is defined in terms of acceleration then that 'clapping hand' is acceleration and its units are those of acceleration.

If, in the case of f=ma, A is a for acceleration and B is m for mass, defined as an inverse acceleration, then B is defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence A. In other words, mass has defined units that consist of a combination of meters and seconds, the fundamental indefinable units of its empirical evidence.

James Putnam

Tom,

Putting my logic skills to work, here are example problems clarifying the meaning of 'pre-existing' :-)

Existing problem #1:

Before is before after.

After is after before.

Before' is before before.

Therefore, before is after before'.

After' is after after.

Therefore, after is before after'.

Proven: That before is after.

Proven: That after is before.

Existing problem #2:

Mickey is a mouse.

Minnie is a mouse.

A mouse is a mouse.

Proven: That Mickey is Minnie.

A pre-existing problem:

Returning to unfinished business concerning what is taught in a physics textbook. It needs to be confirmed that you do or do not agree that there are definable properties and indefinable properties in physics as described in the Sears and Zemansky quote? If you do not agree, then how would you write an alternative second paragraph? Please include your view as to whether or not mass is defined property or an undefined property? Nothing tricky here other than looking for firm answers that will permit us to move forward.

Quoting Sears and Zemansky; College Physics; Section one, Page one, paragraph two:

"A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics."

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Each of my statements is correct physics."

Prove it.

"If A is an object's acceleration and B is defined in terms of acceleration then that 'clapping hand' is acceleration and its units are those of acceleration."

Acceleration relative to what? You haven't (and have no means to) describe an object at rest.

"If, in the case of f=ma, A is a for acceleration and B is m for mass, defined as an inverse acceleration, then B is defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence A."

That would give you E = m. As I have said.

Thomas Ray

"Proven: That before is after.

Proven: That after is before."

Therefore 0 = 1 (by which one can "prove" absolutely anything.)

"It needs to be confirmed that you do or do not agree that there are definable properties and indefinable properties in physics as described in the Sears and Zemansky quote?"

No, James, it needs to be confirmed that you know what that means. Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable. Physics definitions are operational, not formally logical.

"If you do not agree, then how would you write an alternative second paragraph? Please include your view as to whether or not mass is defined property or an undefined property? Nothing tricky here other than looking for firm answers that will permit us to move forward.

"Quoting Sears and Zemansky; College Physics; Section one, Page one, paragraph two:

"A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured."

That's really all you need to know. Because the definition is operational, the rules provide the means to construct a measurement framework. Without it, one cannot do physics at all.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"No, James, it needs to be confirmed that you know what that means. Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable. Physics definitions are operational, not formally logical."

I presume that you are saying that f=ma defines force and f\a=m defines mass? Also, "Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable." implies that your definition of define is not the physics definition of define. In physics define means to express in terms of pre-existing properties. Undefinable means there are no pre-existing properties by which a property or unit can be expressed. I understand you to be saying that to define something does not require it to be expressed in terms of pre-existing properties. in other words, one just needs a mathematical equation that can be solved for the property in question. For example f/a=m defines mass? Then, is it your view to say that no property or unit in physics is indefinable?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

You know, it occurred to me that one of your logical syllogisms (which I assume you offered tongue in cheek) is exactly the way that many Joy Christian's falsely deduced that his correlation function is constant and equal to - 1.

"Mickey is a mouse.

Minnie is a mouse.

A mouse is a mouse.

Proven: That Mickey is Minnie."

Dichotomous variables even of the same class are not identities.

Thomas Ray

"I presume that you are saying that f=ma defines force and f\a=m defines mass?"

It doesn't matter what the terms stand for. The relation exactly corresponds to measurement.

"Also, 'Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable.' implies that your definition of define is not the physics definition of define. In physics define means to express in terms of pre-existing properties."

James, do you know what "operational" means?

Thomas Ray

James

James Putnam

Quoting from Tom's link: "3. The physical object we are measuring actually has a well-defined length."

I think I do understand. An operational definition is when one teaches that one has a well-defined property when one has an indefinable property? I will stick with the clear logic expressed in the Sears and Zemansky quote.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"It's the *same* logic, James. Remember what I told you about correlating information from independent sources?

James Putnam

Your source is not a source about defining length. It is source about how to measure length. The instructor is using define in the same loose way that you do. I used the physics definition of a defined property. Your source needs an interpreter to make sure that meanings are proper and clear.

James Putnam

Perhaps for some who might not have been certain, the difference between a definable property and an indefinable property has been made certain by referencing the hundreds of years old physics' explanation. Now, using that explanation, and beginning again to represent my work in my words:

In the equation f=ma there are three indefinable properties. They are mass, length, and time. One equation with three out of four properties that are undefined properties. The equation needs some new work done to it. The fix is naturally limited in its scope. That natural limitation is that length and time are fundamental indefinable properties and will always be so. They are the properties of empirical evidence. There are no properties before them. They are the first properties. There are no pre-existing properties by which to define them.

The 'fundamental indefinable' property that is not a first property is mass. It is not a first property because there are two properties, length and time, that pre-exist mass. The status of mass as a fundamental indefinable property began as an artificial status. That artificiality is made apparent by the fact that the choice could have been, with equal justification, either force of mass.

Nature made all of its choices itself. It did not leave choices about its properties to us to make for it. There is no justification for choosing either force or mass to be a fundamental indefinable property. Nature's choices for fundamental indefinable properties are length and time. That is why they are the properties of empirical evidence. From empirical evidence, consisting of the two properties length and time, we are informed by nature about all other properties of mechanics.

All other properties have to be defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence. If this restriction is not enforced, then we, not nature, have left openings for guesses. If the restriction is enforced, then the equations will function as tools for revealing that which nature is communicating to us through empirical evidence.

My work consists of enforcing that restriction and reforming the equations of physics devoid of the guesses that have accumulated as theoretical speculations. I begin with f=ma and define both force and mass in the terms in which their empirical evidence is expressed.

James Putnam

« Previous Page Next Page »