Alternative Models of Reality

Georgina Woodward

Sorry I seem to have have become incoherent. I meant to say something like-I have corrected a few more typos and changed the order a little. I have also put in more about the 'Tube" map. I hope those are all improvements. Kind regards to all, Georgina

Georgina Woodward

I have added in the few improvements that I had suggested for this paper. Any feedback, questions,argument,suggestions for further improvement are welcome. It identifies the category error in relativity and gives lots of information about the explanatory framework I have proposed.Attachment #1: RICP_framework_category_error_and_magic_2016.pdf

Georgina Woodward

I have now got new software that actually helps me format rather than trying to frustrate and undermine my attempts. So I have been reformatting and punctuating the paper as well as adding other improvements as I go along. It is so much better without all of those boxes I couldn't get rid of and different fonts and line spacings and other oddness. I haven't quite finished as there are more things I can add to improve it- but this is a coming soon announcement, the new and improved version. Seeing the paper scrutinized by the new software makes me realize how very badly presented it was. Sorry about that if you have looked at it already.Consider it work in progress. I'll get there in the end.

Georgina Woodward

Hi All, I have just now submitted the thoroughly proof read and revised paper to viXra, so hopefully in a few days I will be able to link it or let you know how you can find it there. : )

Georgina Woodward

Have recieved an email saying the submission is now available at http://viXra.org/abs/1608.0049

Here it is as a link Reality in the context of physics (RICP): An explanatory framework: Bridging the pitfalls of category error, dispelling paradox and excluding magic from physics

Really would be nice if some of you could take a look. I've spent quite a lot of time getting it 'tickety boo' but I guess like a painting there comes a time to say that will do. I can think of things I maybe should have said but it is quite long enough. If anyone wants to talk about what is or isn't there that should be that would be great. I know the diagrams are full of more information that needed all at once. Simplify by removing superfluous labels to meet own requirements.

Akinbo Ojo

Hello Georgina,

Well done on your effort. I see you must have put in a lot physically and mentally into it and to encourage let me make one or two criticisms (to further encourage not discourage).

- The paper seems to be belong more to philosophy category than physics category.

- Although there was a lot of effort to show the difficulties with Special relativity there was not a single mention of "postulate" in the paper. Perhaps, you do not agree that this is is the bone of contention and even the foundation on which the theory itself is built.

- The closest to the "postulate" was when you said, "The speed of light is not infinite but finite, measured as 299 792458 m/s. Relating that premise to the given example. Traveling at the speed of light it takes time for light emitted from source substantial object A to get to B". And further claimed as FACTS that

"a) Einstein's relativity works to describe what will be observed. b) It's a mathematically complete theory in itself. c) It corresponds with experimental results".

The question I have for you here is: If B moves towards the source just as the light is emitted and on its way, will the time for light to get to B be altered? If so, why do you still go ahead to claim as fact that Einstein's relativity corresponds with experimental results? If you claim that the time of arrival is not altered, do you want me to give you experimental instances where the movement of B affects light arrival time?

- What do you understand by Galilean relativity concerning light and how does your proposal differ from it?

That will be all for now.

Regards,

Akinbo

Georgina Woodward

Hi Akimbo, thank you so much for your comment. It is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to get when I was posting draft versions.(It is in the viXra history and philosophy section of physics.) I'm not challenging the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light (in vacuo.)From the light clock and wavelength discussion parts I was showing how at a foundational level there is good reason for constancy, comparing light to other periodic motions. It starts focused on the category error in physics and what we can do taking that into account. Actually, where you quote me, I'm just saying it takes time for light to travel a distance. A/ If the distance is smaller then it wouldn't take as long, in foundational reality. I spend a lot of time differentiating Object and Image reality and explaining how what is seen does not exactly correspond to the underlying reality.

Georgina Woodward

Akinbo, sorry for mistyping your name. No edit at the moment to change it now : (

Akinbo Ojo

In the current mess that today's physics has entangled itself one should be careful in using clichГ©s and words that either have no meaning or are internally contradictory or inconsistent.

For instance, what is a light clock?

According to Special relativity, time does not flow for a light particle. The equation that governs this is t'= t в€љ1 - v2/c2

where t is time for a clock at rest, t' is the time for a moving clock and v is the velocity at which it is moving. If a clock moves at light speed c, time passage is zero. Can something for which time does not flow be used as a clock?

We know that light has frequency, defined as cycles per second. Yet Special relativitists (not Einstein) want us to accept the non-passage of time.

When you say: "... I'm just saying it takes time for light to travel a distance. (...) If the distance is smaller then it wouldn't take as long, in foundational reality"

In which other type of reality does light travel a much smaller distance in a longer time? Or a much longer distance in a shorter time? Is there any?

Take note that the use of the word constancy refers not to the actual velocity but the relative/ resultant velocity. Speed of sound is also constant in air of given temperature. But when B moves toward an incoming wave using your A-B source and receptor for analogy, the arrival time is different than if B were to remain stationary. For sound this is accepted. For light, it is not and this is what the "constant"refers to and it arose from the Michelson-Morley experiment where movement of B had no effect on light.

Akinbo

Georgina Woodward

Hi Akinbo, there is a section called examining the light clock, where I talk about the thought experiment Einstein used re. moving a light clock consisting of a beam reflected between two mirrors. I go on to consider the planes problem in which there seems to be confirmation of the slowing of a material, moving clock. However that doesn't fit with the mathematical fact that periodic motion is unaltered by translation. (Applying under ideal conditions to the real world). So even though there can differences in perceived time due to differences of information transfer for different reference frames the time measured on the material clocks should remain unaltered. I have set out some possibilities for the experimental findings that I thought were plausible.Take a look at the category error argument to glean some insight into what I am talking about in regard to realities.

Georgina Woodward

Any other visitors -please See http://viXra.org/abs/1608.0049

Not the draft above here on this page. Feedback here or on viXra much appreciated.

Here it is as a link Reality in the context of physics (RICP): An explanatory framework: Bridging the pitfalls of category error, dispelling paradox and excluding magic from physics

Steve Agnew

Thanks for the link. I have read it and its previous versions now several times. I have liked your uni-temporal time as a second time dimension that is absolute and part of object reality, but it has gone away. Too bad.

What is not really clear is what problem are you solving? You might consider a clear problem statement and then the measurement or method that you propose to solve that problem.

You say,

..."Measurements of seen images are muddled with measurements of material objects. The 'information' derived universe is taken to be THE reality..."

So you suppose there are two kinds of measurements: seen images and material objects. But seen images are one of many kinds of measurements of material objects, so really there are just measurements of material objects.

You propose an object reality that represents things in and of themselves. This implies that there is also a subjective reality of things as how they appear, but you do not use that word. Instead you say "seen images". Why not just use the standard word subjective?

You further propose that there is a hidden variable that you call provocation and if science simply measured provocation (your lion box metaphor), the measurement would no longer show the quantum properties of superposition and entanglement.

Bohmian mechanics and pilot wave theory and superdeterminism are all the same kinds of approaches that suppose hidden variables for quantum phase. Many people believe devoutly in superdeterminism but none of these approaches have ever been useful for addressing quantum problems. So good luck...

I like it that you have a nice methodological approach and you should consider a few graphics to illustrate your points. Also, science papers usually follow an outline of abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion and you might consider a similar approach.

In other words, you need to describe your methodology and results first and then discuss how your methods and approach compare with others. The way that you have it structured mixes your methods up with those of several others. You seem to agree with Maudlin and so does that mean that you use his methods?

Georgina Woodward

Steve, thank you so much for reading the measurement, entanglement ontology paper. I think I'll work back through your comments. First, no I am not agreeing with Tim Maudlin's conclusion. My conclusion is based on my earlier arguments supported by the analogies I provide. Tim Maudlin is clearly setting out what Bell did, in his talk and paper, and that is really useful starting point for refutation of it. The important point about 'Provocation' is that it isn't a measurement in the normal sense of measuring a property but causes the response that is then measured. It comes into being upon interaction. The problem the analogies solve is explaining how the results of the quantum measurements can have the statistical patterns they have, without having to suppose superposition, or suppose spooky action at a distance. (More later, I must go now : ))

Georgina Woodward

Steve, Pt 2. In this paper I'm really dealing with the problem of the kinds of outcomes obtained by for example electron spin measurement that seem strange if they are assumed to be of predetermined properties. I am not dealing with the RICP explanatory framework in any detail- that is in the other paper. Even though this paper concludes that the explanatory framework can provide the necessary ontic background.

The Image reality is not just seen images it is output from received and processed information. An example could be an astronomic image. The information received can be agreed by all and the image produced from it can be agreed by all (viewing it independently). So it is an objective image not subjective, as the term is used.That is not saying that it is not relative.

You will see that I don't agree that there are just measurements. The first paper talks about the category error of confusing different kinds of measurement in much greater detail. The second deals with other kinds of 'measurement' in particular provocation but along similar lines Selection pressure. The wrong assumption being that the measured exists prior to measurement in the case of Provocation rather than there being no measurement (in space-time) and no preference before hand ; and that different outcomes of different challenges are the same thing and can be added and subtracted in the case of Selection pressure.

Georgina Woodward

Steve, pt 3, I'm sorry it isn't clear what problem I am addressing. Does the abstract help? It is a bit quirky because its based around the analogies and the videos by Allan Adams and Tim Maudlin. I was a bit concerned about whether it was OK just to refer to them rather than spell out in detail the background physics that the two gentlemen are presenting. I kind of hoped anyone interested, or unfamiliar, might take a peak at the videos themselves. I don't know whether you are just pointing out its unconventionality or stating that it is a problem with the paper that needs addressing. I think if it is a serious barrier to comprehension I might attempt another more formal and conventional version, rather than change what I have. Though I did have a last minute proof reading panic and forgot what I was doing with the fruit and changed Brown raisins for Green grapes. Doh! I'll get it changed back. Really appreciate your comments Steve.

Georgina Woodward

I take back that last comment. Checked my fruit and it seems I had already changed it back before posting to viXra. I've just created a version where all the apostrophes and speech marks match, as some slipped through when I changed font and the punctuation didn't automatically change too! Maybe I'll wait a while, to see if anyone points out other errors before posting it.

By the way I read the abstract and it does make clear what the paper is about. Maybe if the lack of intro is a problem, I could repeat the abstract or part of it at the beginning of the paper itself. I think its nice sometimes, when reading a book, to be thrown into the action. I'm trying to do that by getting to the point, the problem with measurement, at the outset. I love that lecture- watch it if you haven't. Great teacher.

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Lowey,

If dark matter and gravitation are the answer,the fourth can be explained.That said I don't really understand a fith force with decays or this or that of our standard model.The gravitation, the fourth force seems be a different logic than our standard model.Dark matter is not brayonic,and it seems that gravitation is there.Regards

Georgina Woodward

Steve, I think you are right here. To my mind it seems that gravitation has its source in the necessary ontological background to physics models that have been derived from information; relativity and QM. Curvature of space-time is an effect and not a cause. So gravity might be included not by "quantum-izing" it but by acknowledging that there is that ontological background to those models. The same may be true for dark matter, but I know less about it, and just offer that as a suggestion.

Steve Dufourny

Hello Georgina,

I am thanking you.It is isrelevant indeed to analyse these effects on our spacetime.Several mathematical Tools can be utilised towards our gravitaion.I try with the geometrical algebras but I must accept that it is not easy:)

Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

I say me that dark matter not baryonic is the answer.These BH and dark matter seem really encircling at the two scales, quant and cosm,the standard model with thermo and electromagnetic forces.The numbers of BH and stars can help in logic with the spherical volumes.The central sphere,the central BH and its spherical volume is intriguing.This BH in logic implies the gravitational aether with the smallest and speedest spherons produced by this BH.This spheronic sphere is the biggest sphere and after we have a superimposing of gravitational aethers due to spherical volumes of BH Inside this universal gravitational sphere.These gravitational spheres in logic are proportional with the spherical volumes.Probably also thatthe quantum serie is linked also because we have also quantum BH stronger than nuclear protonic forces and dark matter encoded weaker than electromagnetism.We see easily the standard model encircled by this matter not baryonic.If my intuitive equation is correct mlosV=constant we can see the proprotions and motions of spherical volumes, producing for the cosm scale and encoding for the quantum scale.Gravitation is a natural force implying the rotations of sphères and proportions correlated with this main primorodial gravitational newtonian aether.All turns around this center, this BH where all codes come from.God like said Einstein does not play at dices,we are connected with this center by this gravitation speeder than c.Intriguing when we analyse the weakest force by encoding due to linear velocity of these spherons produced by thiscentral BH.God is near us instantaneously by this weakest and speedest force.It is fascinating in fact.Regards

Steve Dufourny

This Dark energy and this dark matter is really fascinating when we see the whole of this universe.The Gravitation seems really an other logic than our thermodynamical photonic standard model if I can say.There is a bridge it seems to me.The plack scale at 10^-35m and this zero absolute seems relevant.Why this gravitation exists in fact ,why they turn these sphères.It is not due to thermodynamical forces ,it is a natural force probably linked with this anti gravitational push implying the expansion from the central BH creating also the dark matter.This force becomes relevant when we consider that our standard model is encircled by BH and perticles of gravitation encoded.

Our nuclei with the protons neutrons and their quarks andthe 3 forces ,nuclear with gluons,weak with bosons and electromagnetic with photons.More far than our protons neutrons,the quantu BH in logic are there with main codes and we have a serie towards the main central quantum BH,this force isincredibly enormous more we go towards the central BH.The forces are more than nuclar forces and furtherore there are many steps due to spherical volumes.The other relevance is the encodings weaker than photons and our electromagnetism.The spherons are encoded.We see easily that our standard model is encircled by BH and spherons.So by gravitation.The same relative logic if for the universal scale.The spherical volumes answer if my intuitive équations are correct.

Steve Dufourny

Dear Zeeya ,

Could you tell us when the contests shall be put on FQXI please ?,We wait the essays...

Regards

Steve Dufourny

Schrödinger equation....I said me that we could extrapolate thisgravitation with the works of Schrödinger.The duality wave particle is also a reality for these particles of gravitation.The gravitational stability can be analysed like stationary systems and the waves like photons but with an important difference is that here these waves are not relativistic.We have several main classments.The not relativistic systems with stable serie not linear.And the relativistic particles.But for the not relativistic systems, there are also a classments necessary.The stable serie Under our standard model and the gravitationalserie with quantum BH.Above the electromagnetism, the spherons encoded weaker than this electromagnetism can be analysed like photons but smaller and speeder than photons.A paradox apperas becaus photons seems encircled also by this gravitation giving the main codes of comportments.Photons are not the primordial particles.They are just drived by gravitation.It is there that zero absolute becomes relevant considering spherons like primoridla codes.These particles seem the primordial codes.The gravitationalcodes so permit to have the steps of énergies in encircling the standard model.The schrodinger equation can be irmpoved with these spherons and quantum BH and mlosV=constant and E=mc²+ml² in inserting the spin, the position, the oment,.....with or without time.Linear or not....The perturbations...In fact the logic is the same with waves and particles more complex simply due to fact that this gravitaty encircles this photonic system, the standard model.In logic we can quantify the steps of Energies due to spherical volumes and we can also make an universal correlation, superimposing with the cosmological scale.

Gary Simpson

Steve Dufourny wrote:

"Dear Zeeya ,

Could you tell us when the contests shall be put on FQXI please ?,We wait the essays...

Regards"

I think I hear crickets chirping Steve:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Steve Dufourny

:) and jumping :)

kurt stocklmeir

this is my theory for years I have talked about it - it could be true - there are little worm holes all through space - virtual particle anti particle get around worm hole - 1 of the particles goes through the worm hole - particles separate and become normal particles - there is entanglement between the particles - if 1 of the particles when to a parallel universe or came from a parallel universe use entanglement to send information to parallel universe Kurt Stocklmeir

« Previous Page Next Page »