Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Tom,

""Theory is the ideology.""

"The ideology of what?"

The ideology is the belief that physicists' guesses about possible substitutes to fill in for the unknown should guide us on how to understand that which is known.

James Putnam

Tom,

"Which does what?"

Given how many times we have debated this, your mind much have an edit function bordering on amnesia. Especially with inconvenient observations.

Space presumably expands, but since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and since those distant galaxies presumably are moving away in terms of how long the light takes to reach us, the vacuum must then be a constant. So how is it that space expands, yet the vacuum remains constant? Wouldn't the constant presumably be the denominator, thus the expansion, being the numerator, is only an increasing number of these stable units, otherwise known as increasing distance? Which puts the whole situation in normal, three dimensional space and thus either means we are at the center of the universe, or that redshift is an optical effect of extreme distance, possibly due to dilation of the photon, beyond the point sufficient light can register relatively instantly.

"How does Olber's paradox explain background radiation?"

Olber's paradox is as to why the sky is not completely lit up by the light of ever distant sources, given an infinite universe. Background radiation is "first light" from the very edge of the universe. If light is redshifted by extreme distance and it is an infinite universe, then the light that has been shifted completely off the visible spectrum would be just such a black body radiation, from the visible edge of the universe and it would have anisotropies to it, because while it is still no longer on the visible spectrum, it would have had definite sources and we would be seeing the vestiges of their form in this light. So we are "seeing" the sky lit up by ever distant sources, just shifted off the visible spectrum.

"Einstein and Minkowski should have been delighted with the many worlds hypothesis."

Einstein didn't even like the idea of "God playing dice." I'm sure he would have been thrilled that God had to create multiple realities in order to prevent the collapse of the wavefunction.

"What would the shadow of spacetime look like?" "It's not the patterns in the shadows that are physically real."

Shadows are as real as any image. Spacetime is a set of measurements, a map and maps are real. What cast those measurements? Is it the "fabric of spacetime?" Or is it that measures of duration and distance can vary under different conditions? When you assign agency to the pattern, ie. those measurements directly correlate to some physical property and are not derived from more complex interactions, you have essentially made the same conceptual leap of faith which assumed epicycles must be due to giant cosmic gear wheels. That these patterns are the reality, not a shadow of some other relationship at work.

Remember math is only about discovering order. Religion is about assigning agency to it.

Regards,

John M

"The ideology is the belief that physicists' guesses about possible substitutes to fill in for the unknown should guide us on how to understand that which is known."

That's not ideology. Add in correspondence to experimental tests, and that's science.

Tom,

"Religion is about assigning agency to it."

Religions are theories some people won't let go of, but that others don't believe in.

Regards,

John M

"That's not ideology. Add in correspondence to experimental tests, and that's science."

It is a belief system unsupported by empirical evidence. It is unsupported by empirical evidence because it consists of guesses about possible substitutes to fill in for the unknown. Correspondence to experimental tests does not apply to the theory, it applies to the patterns of changes of velocities of objects that has been used as guides to form the mathematical equations that model those patterns. The arbitrary names of arbitrary properties and the arbitrary units that are added into the equations by theorist are not science. Science is the pursuit of understanding that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

In order to learn that which empirical evidence is communicating to us, we must consistently define everything in our equations based as closely as possible on the patterns of changes of velocities as expressed using only measures of length and time. Those patterns tell us that objects undergo acceleration and that the variations of the patterns infer the additional existence of force and resistance to force. We don't get to view force and resistance to force. Our view is limited to measures of length and time. Our equations must model that which is viewed. No information is needed to be added on. Empirical evidence contains all relevant information. Theory is added on information that communicates to us that which the theorist is imagining.

James Putnam

"Given how many times we have debated this, your mind much have an edit function bordering on amnesia. Especially with inconvenient observations."

Projecting, are we John?

"Space presumably expands, but since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and since those distant galaxies presumably are moving away in terms of how long the light takes to reach us, the vacuum must then be a constant."

You have an amazing facility for jumping to conclusions. Correlation is not causation -- the fact that the speed of light is constant does not imply that "the vacuum is a constant," whatever that means.

"So how is it that space expands, yet the vacuum remains constant?"

Beats me, since that makes no sense.

"Wouldn't the constant presumably be the denominator, thus the expansion, being the numerator, is only an increasing number of these stable units, otherwise known as increasing distance?"

As near as I can make out, you are saying that n/m grows larger if m is constant. True, but irrelevant. The universe is actually accelerating in its expansion.

"Which puts the whole situation in normal, three dimensional space and thus either means we are at the center of the universe, or that redshift is an optical effect of extreme distance, possibly due to dilation of the photon, beyond the point sufficient light can register relatively instantly."

I'll probably never understand how you arrive at this false dichotomy. Relativity however, explains the "center of the universe" problem.

"'How does Olber's paradox explain background radiation?'

"Olber's paradox is as to why the sky is not completely lit up by the light of ever distant sources, given an infinite universe. Background radiation is 'first light' from the very edge of the universe. If light is redshifted by extreme distance and it is an infinite universe, then the light that has been shifted completely off the visible spectrum would be just such a black body radiation, from the visible edge of the universe and it would have anisotropies to it, because while it is still no longer on the visible spectrum, it would have had definite sources and we would be seeing the vestiges of their form in this light. So we are 'seeing' the sky lit up by ever distant sources, just shifted off the visible spectrum."

*Or* -- siince we associate the background radiation with big bang theory, Olber's paradox is a superfluous explanation.

"'Einstein and Minkowski should have been delighted with the many worlds hypothesis.'

Einstein didn't even like the idea of 'God playing dice.' I'm sure he would have been thrilled that God had to create multiple realities in order to prevent the collapse of the wavefunction."

Um ... if the wave function doesn't collapse, there is no dice playing involved.

"'What would the shadow of spacetime look like?' It's not the patterns in the shadows that are physically real.'

Shadows are as real as any image."

Oh? So if I appear to you as a hologram and you shoot me through the heart, I will die. Thanks for the heads up.

"Spacetime is a set of measurements, a map and maps are real."

I thought you claimed spacetime isn't real. Change your mind?

"What cast those measurements? Is it the 'fabric of spacetime?' Or is it that measures of duration and distance can vary under different conditions?"

Will the false dichotomies never cease?

"When you assign agency to the pattern, ie. those measurements directly correlate to some physical property and are not derived from more complex interactions, you have essentially made the same conceptual leap of faith which assumed epicycles must be due to giant cosmic gear wheels."

The measurement of celestial epicycles doesn't require a leap of faith -- just a lot more calculating. Mathematicians are notoriously lazy.

"That these patterns are the reality, not a shadow of some other relationship at work."

Beg your pardon -- whether calculated by heliocentric or geocentric methods, the relationships among the bodies do not change.

"Remember math is only about discovering order. Religion is about assigning agency to it."

I'll remember that when you prove your first theorem.

Best,

Tom

"Empirical evidence contains all relevant information. Theory is added on information that communicates to us that which the theorist is imagining."

Theories only contain *scientific* information ti the extent that their predictions correspond to empirical reality. I'd like to see you get published someday, James, but you don't have a ghost of a chance without understanding how science works.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I can't expect to have theory free physics approved by theorists. However, why don't you suggest a publication. I will submit an article that is limited to my case for fixing f=ma. The publication needs only to be receptive to articles that contain text and equations and no illustrative graphs displaying new experimental results. It might be rejected outright, but, there just may also be feedback from reviewers that we can discuss.

James Putnam

Tom,

A long time ago, I made the mistake of getting into a number of debates about religion and swore to avoid them whenever possible. If it can be argued that space expands, but the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant, than why isn't any other belief valid? The only evidence for this expansion is the redshifting of the spectrum of that very light. A lightyear is about a trillion miles, so the distance between two galaxies goes from x trillion miles, to 2x trillion miles and that's supposed to be "expanding space" and not just increasing distance????? I realize there must not be a contradiction from your point of view, but I fail to see how it works. Can you sleep on a bed of nails too?

Regards,

John M

Tom,

This is probably a good time to express my appreciation for your participation in discussions with me. There presently is no other wall to bounce things off of. :-)

Also, I have been wanting to mention that I recall the last message posted at dis-proofs was yours. I found that message very impressive. When I returned to read it again, it was gone. I think that some of those missing messages are an unfortunate loss. I remember yours as being always on point and didactic, not aggressively personal.

James Putnam

James Putnam

Tom,

You did your best as to answer my questions.

I asked "Who introduced the notion observer into physics?"

Wiki seems to confirm my guess that it was Einstein who introduced the anthropic and misleading notion observer into physics.

I asked: "Is in SR the receiver of light considered the observer or is the observer someone elsewhere? To me, the notion observer is still ambiguous."

Wiki writes: "... an inertial reference frame may be called an 'inertial observer' to avoid ambiguity", "Reference frames are inherently nonlocal constructs, covering all of space and time", and "it does not make sense to speak of an observer (in the special relativistic sense) having a location."

Well, this "differ[s] significantly from the [common sense] meaning of 'observer'.

I asked: "Was there any reason not to use the unambiguous notion receiver?"

Wiki writes: "The notion observer *should* be ambiguous in a system of no preferred frame of reference.

Calling it vernacular Wiki hides rather than explains its ambiguity.

My own answer to my question is this: Space has no preferred point of reference. It is rather just the ubiquitous system of mutual distances. Even if the inappropriate notion observer was perhaps initially chosen by chance, its ambiguity did fit to the postulated system of simultaneously valid non-local frames of reference with to two-way speed of light and abandoned universal time.

Best,

Eckard

" ... its ambiguity did fit to the postulated system of simultaneously valid non-local frames of reference with to two-way speed of light and abandoned universal time."

That's correct, Eckard. The lack of a privileged frame renders all spacetime physics local, and a two-way speed of light measurement assures us that this is the true physical way to think of space and time relative to arbitrarily chosen coordinates. General relativity, on the other hand, can be formulated in a coordinate-free way, and I expect that it will be taught that way in the future because it makes special relativity easier to understand.

Best,

Tom

Thank you, James. In turn, I have always appreciated your even-handedness in mediating disputes even when you disagree with one side of the issue.

I'm afraid I got caught in a crossfire on the "disproofs" thread. I have tried to restore some of the information, on the older "classical spheres" thread, and to stimulate new dialogue -- hopefully more civil and collegial.

All best,

Tom

Hmmm. The system said I was logged in. Previous was mine.

"If it can be argued that space expands, but the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant, than why isn't any other belief valid?"

John, that isn't the argument. The argument is that mass points all recede from each other at a rate measurable by the degree of red shift. The constant speed of light is only a standard that ensures we can use the red shift evidence -- for if the speed were not constant, or if it were infinite, we couldn't make any general conclusion about the expansion.

"The only evidence for this expansion is the redshifting of the spectrum of that very light. A lightyear is about a trillion miles, so the distance between two galaxies goes from x trillion miles, to 2x trillion miles and that's supposed to be 'expanding space' and not just increasing distance?????"

It's distance increasing with time. It suggests to us that the universe has an age. General relativity cosmology, which supports the big bang theory, is time dependent -- meaning that it is bounded at the singularity of creation. Because we don't know what t = 0 actually means, though, we don't have a bulletproof theory of cosmology, and all that we think about it now may be wrong. Cosmology is still a young science.

"Can you sleep on a bed of nails too?"

If the nails are sufficiently close together. :-) Good analogy.

Best,

Tom

James,

"I can't expect to have theory free physics approved by theorists. However, why don't you suggest a publication. I will submit an article that is limited to my case for fixing f=ma."

I think there might be some publication dedicated to philosophy of science willing to entertain an inductive approach. You can google "philosophy of science journals" for a list -- research their editorial policies and current issue contents and see what appeals to you.

The best advice I can give is to compile plenty of references from Aristotle (or earlier) up to Newton -- because Newton ("Hypotheses non fingo") is where we usually demarcate the modern theory-dependent method of science from the inductive system. Construct your case on the historical successes of induction and when you reach Newton, explain how physics would have gone in a different direction had Newton not made the choices he did.

To be honest, I thnk it's a losing proposition -- however, there exists no general theory of knowledge, so the case you make could be groundbreaking if it succeeds.

Good luck!

Best,

Tom

John, have you listened to the latest FQXi podcast? All you ever wanted to know about expansion, dark energy and the current state of cosmology. :-)

Tom

James,

Trying to catch up here. You wrote, " ... the Higgs' theory of mass is built upon the artificial indefinable status assigned to mass by theorists."

It's not the Higgs theory of mass. It's a completion of the particle table predicted by the standard model of particle physics -- which is a theory of interacting fields of energy. In quantum field theory, the strength of the field, i.e., the energy imparted to particles, predicts the existence of particles and their properties. We theoretically derive classical physics from quantum field theory in the low energy limit, though this is an open area for research, because classical fields do not describe quantum mechanical behavior.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Re: Higgs, I will wait to discuss it further until I have something to say from my own work.

The publication suggestion: Thank you for your advice. I would send it to a physics journal. Philosophy is not involved in the correction. I would not include any history beyond Newton discovering it. The problem with f=ma and its solution are both contained in the equation. Thanks anyway.

James Putnam