Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Tom,

"You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim."

What do I change? That instead of arguing space/the universe is infinite, I say it is finite?

That instead of saying the baseline is flat space/the vacuum, I argue it all began at a point?

What are my other options?

Regards,

John M

"You can't even qualify that with a 'we think the universe is finite?'"

I can. If general relativity cosmology (big bang) is true, the universe is finite in volume, though unbounded.

I concede the point, John.

Best,

Tom

"What do I change? That instead of arguing space/the universe is infinite, I say it is finite?"

That's one. You referenced Olbers paradox earlier. That's one piece of evidence for a finite universe.

"That instead of saying the baseline is flat space/the vacuum, I argue it all began at a point?"

You don't have to assume the general relativity cosmology. However, if space is primordial and minimally two-dimensional, how did it get that way?

"What are my other options?"

How many do you need? :-)

Best,

Tom

"It makes no difference whether the motion is relative or not. The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles."

It makes all the difference in the world. Because relative motion is referred to the absolute speed of light, the speed of photons -- all of which are emitted at the speed of light -- does not impart any historical information about massive particles at less than the speed of light. So any information that photons may have acquired, by whatever mechanism that you propose, is not about the acceleration of particles -- because that information can apply only to the motion of massive particles relative to other massive particles.

"Also, the principle of equivalence is expressed in different ways with different words. One of those ways is to say that acceleration and gravity are the same thing."

Only colloquially.

"And finally, you haven't refuted my claims. You haven't even understood them. You need to learn the fundamentals of the theoretical physics that you defend. I mention its starting point and you are completely unaware of it. How could you not yet understand that difference between an indefinable property and a defined property. Why don't you put your time into reading about it? Finally learn that mass is an indefinable property. Your See spot run algebra was an irrelevant retort that demonstrated you still have no idea what is being discussed."

Here's the thing, James -- I haven't introduced any new physics in these discussions. It is not my knowledge of basic physics that you are questioning; it is Einstein's and Newton's.

It's irrelevant whether I have any idea of what's being discussed. You are refuted by 300 years of classical physics, and the onus is not on me to fix that.

Best,

Tom

"To ask a simple question; Does the temperature of absolute zero equate to a point, or to a vacuum?"

What is the temperature of absolute zero?

"Another; Is a dimensionless point physically real, or mathematical convenience?"

It's a point on the continuum of dimensionless numbers. All fundamental elements of mathematics are conveniently chosen, John.

Best,

Tom

"You can't even qualify that with a 'we think the universe is finite?'"

I can. If general relativity cosmology (big bang) is true, the universe is finite in volume, though unbounded.

I concede the point, John.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"It makes all the difference in the world. Because relative motion is referred to the absolute speed of light, the speed of photons -- all of which are emitted at the speed of light -- does not impart any historical information about massive particles at less than the speed of light. So any information that photons may have acquired, by whatever mechanism that you propose, is not about the acceleration of particles -- because that information can apply only to the motion of massive particles relative to other massive particles."

I am talking about objects that are observed. That is what empirical evidence consists of. I don't propose the mechanism. Accelerated charged particle, at any velocity they have, emit photons. If there is no acceleration, there is no photon to tell you about constant velocity. You have never received information about no change. You didn't learn the concept of no change from the universe. Photons always deliver information about change of acceleration only. At least that is the case for the mechanical universe of theoretical physics.

""Also, the principle of equivalence is expressed in different ways with different words. One of those ways is to say that acceleration and gravity are the same thing.""

"Only colloquially."

Physicists describe it that way along with other expressions.

"Here's the thing, James -- I haven't introduced any new physics in these discussions. It is not my knowledge of basic physics that you are questioning; it is Einstein's and Newton's."

No. The thing is that you do not understand the significance of and are unaware of the difference between an indefinable property and a defined one.

"It's irrelevant whether I have any idea of what's being discussed. You are refuted by 300 years of classical physics, and the onus is not on me to fix that."

I am exposing the inappropriate action taken by physicists to decide to tell nature that its property of mass is a fundamental indefinable property only because force was not chosen.

James Putnam

"The thing is that you do not understand the significance of and are unaware of the difference between an indefinable property and a defined one."

Enlighten me.

Tom,

It's certainly all conjecture for me, but as you say, all we have is theory.

And observation.

My point about Olber's paradox is that microwave background radiation is what the light from over the horizon line of visibility would be registering.

"However, if space is primordial and minimally two-dimensional, how did it get that way?"

We assign it dimensionality. If you want to describe it in two dimensions, I see it as the blank sheet of paper, not the graph drawn on the paper. So much of our thought process is about what we can grasp, but does that mean space is based on those physical boundaries? For the sake of conjecture, how difficult would it be to at least conceive space as being space, even if just for a thought experiment? It might be full of quantum activity, but given the scale of just what we can measure, it seems a rather significant aspect of reality to just dismiss as an effect of matter expanding from a point.

"How many do you need?"

My curiosity likes to consider all possibilities.

"What is the temperature of absolute zero?"

If space is a consequence of activity and if we were to theoretically remove all activity, thus zero time, by the principles of spacetime, wouldn't space collapse to a point as well? Or would it remain just a non-fluctuating vacuum? If it is the second, than what action creates it as space? Or does space alone not need cause, since it lacks any properties that require cause?

"All fundamental elements of mathematics are conveniently chosen,"

So they are conceptual tools, designed for efficiency, not platonic gifts of the gods?

As tools, they do frequently get used for applications not originally intended, often to good benefit, but often we find other tools, medicines, concepts, processes, etc. have multiple uses, as well as side effects and other unintended consequences. Could it be that while math is quite useful, it also has effects we might not be taking into account, such as channeling our thinking in ways that blind us to different perspectives?

Regards,

John M

Tom,

""The thing is that you do not understand the significance of and are unaware of the difference between an indefinable property and a defined one.""

"Enlighten me."

Going slowly beginning with the difference and reporting only that which can be found in physics texts:

An indefinable property is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The properties of acceleration, distance and time, are indefinable properties because there are no pre-existing properties by which they may be defined.

A defined property is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties.

Now what text books do not make clear:

An artificial indefinable property is one for which there are pre-existing properties by which it may be defined, but, it is arbitrarily declared to be indefinable. Two examples of artificial indefinable properties are mass and temperature. Physics texts introduce artificial indefinable properties without justification. It was not understood how to take direction from nature. Physicists took it upon themselves to add into nature the indefinable property of mass only because force was not chosen. The real reason was ignorance of how to proceed otherwise.

Whatever choices needed to be made were made by nature since the beginning of the universe. Instead of taking direction from nature, physics took the first step, the declaring of mass to be an indefinable property, to became theoretical. My point: Both force and mass are definable in terms of the pre-existing properties of their empirical evidence. And, turning theoretical was the wrong choice.

The door was opened for inventions of the mind to fill when it was unknown, due to the detrimental effects of their earlier errors, how otherwise to proceed. The earlier errors include but are not limited to the introduction of the indefinable units of kilograms and the indefinable units of degrees.

My work begins with slamming that door shut. My goal is to see how far one may proceed without inventions of the mind, without theory. I have gone far for an amateur working alone. Many of the results have been presented here. Some have not been shown yet other than at my website. An example is the new empirical version of the Lorentz transforms.

James Putnam

John,

"It's certainly all conjecture for me, but as you say, all we have is theory.

And observation."

And measured correspondence between theory and observation.

"My point about Olber's paradox is that microwave background radiation is what the light from over the horizon line of visibility would be registering."

The background radiation comes from all directions. There's no preferred origin, which is why we think it is the thermal leftovers ("dying embers") of a big bang event. If there is a little bit of anisotropy (and there appears to be, on the order of a few parts in a billion), we might learn something about the initial condition of the universe and maybe even get a clue to the nature of quantum gravity.

(me) "'However, if space is primordial and minimally two-dimensional, how did it get that way?'"

(you) "We assign it dimensionality. If you want to describe it in two dimensions, I see it as the blank sheet of paper, not the graph drawn on the paper."

That's one reason the anisotropy is so important. You see, the formalisms of quantum mechanics are all written in two dimensions (complex plane Hilbert space); a quantum bit is two elements. If we could show that the dimensionality is not arbitrary (as anisotropy might suggest) then we not only derive the natural basis for quantum mechanics, we derive the basis for higher dimensional "branes" in a physical way.

"So much of our thought process is about what we can grasp, but does that mean space is based on those physical boundaries? For the sake of conjecture, how difficult would it be to at least conceive space as being space, even if just for a thought experiment? It might be full of quantum activity, but given the scale of just what we can measure, it seems a rather significant aspect of reality to just dismiss as an effect of matter expanding from a point."

That's well taken. However, space and time to a physicist -- at least a relativist -- are not "just" space and time. They are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Even quantum activity requires space a priori, and it is not satisfactory to just imagine it as a primordial background -- we want to know where it came from. Every major door we open leads to a greater room of research possibilities.

(me) "'How many do you need?'"

(you) My curiosity likes to consider all possibilities."

Theorists, on the other hand, try to limit possibilities, i.e., get by on fewer assumptions. The fewer assumptions that yield the larger number of predictions, the stronger the theory.

(me) "'What is the temperature of absolute zero?'"

(you) "If space is a consequence of activity and if we were to theoretically remove all activity, thus zero time, by the principles of spacetime, wouldn't space collapse to a point as well? Or would it remain just a non-fluctuating vacuum? If it is the second, than what action creates it as space? Or does space alone not need cause, since it lacks any properties that require cause?"

Well, we don't really know what a vacuum is, and quantum rules don't allow space to collapse to a point. That's why we use the term "quantum vacuum." If there is no point of certain location in a space containing two elements, there is no way that the elements can avoid fluctuating, because what we know of classical mechanics is that particles expand to fill the space they occupy. Neither classical spacetime nor the quantum vacuum are empty (i.e., there is always something rather than nothing) -- though while the quantum vacuum is filled with particles (actually, virtual particles), classical spacetime is filled with fields. So we get quantum field theory from vacuum energy, and classical spacetime filled with particles is said to emerge from that.

(me) "'All fundamental elements of mathematics are conveniently chosen,'"

(you) "So they are conceptual tools, designed for efficiency, not platonic gifts of the gods?"

Is the alphabet a platonic gift from the gods? Mathematical language is no more efficient than natural language -- it is just more precise.

(you) "As tools, they do frequently get used for applications not originally intended, often to good benefit, but often we find other tools, medicines, concepts, processes, etc. have multiple uses, as well as side effects and other unintended consequences."

Mathematics isn't intended for anything except understanding and communicating relationships among symbols in an objective way. It isn't "about" something, no more than natural language. It doesn't have "consequences" except as one might imagine and assign.

"Could it be that while math is quite useful, it also has effects we might not be taking into account, such as channeling our thinking in ways that blind us to different perspectives?"

Is your knowledge of English blinding you to different perspectives? Possibly. The difference vis a vis mathematics is that mathematics is a universal language, practiced the same everywhere in the world.

Best,

Tom

"An indefinable property is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties."

You're going to have to go even slower than that, James.

The definition of "definition" demands that *all* definitions are taken in terms of more primitive elements, i.e., stipulative terms. There is always an unavoidable ending where some terms need be left undefined, unless one is writing a tome such as Russell's and Whitehead's *Principia*. (And Godel managed to even stick a pin in that balloon.)

If you are saying that mass can be defined in terms of space and time alone (time and distance as you put it) then mass has infinite extension and continuity. You may be right -- however, even for such a mass contninuum, classical mechanics and relativity explain in field-theoretic terms ("no space is empty of the field") how matter and spacetime fill the universe. The range of both electromagnetic and gravitational field influences are infinite.

If, on the other hand, your definition of mass requires finite extension and finite boundary, you are obligated to identify and calculate the limits of that domain, and explain why a continuous mass cannot be accurately treated in a field theory, as we routinely do.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"And measured correspondence between theory and observation."

Yes, but at what point do you start questioning theory? As I point out, religion is a theory and many people over the ages have had doubts raised when events showed any potential deity is not particularly benevolent. Michelson-Morley certainly raised doubts about the ether as medium of light. Yet it seems any divergence of observation from Big Bang theory only leads to more patches.

"The background radiation comes from all directions...If there is a little bit of anisotropy..."

Yes and if space is flat and this is radiation coming from sources over the edge of the visible horizon, it would be coming from all directions and any anisotropy would be very minor, being slightly mottled by originating from lots of very distant sources, not a single event.

"Even quantum activity requires space a priori, and it is not satisfactory to just imagine it as a primordial background -- we want to know where it came from. Every major door we open leads to a greater room of research possibilities."

And if space truly is just background, at what point do we just accept it as a priori, even if it doesn't "exist" without content?

"Theorists, on the other hand, try to limit possibilities, i.e., get by on fewer assumptions. The fewer assumptions that yield the larger number of predictions, the stronger the theory."

The purpose of having possibilities is to test them.

"Well, we don't really know what a vacuum is, and quantum rules don't allow space to collapse to a point. That's why we use the term "quantum vacuum." If there is no point of certain location in a space containing two elements, there is no way that the elements can avoid fluctuating, because what we know of classical mechanics is that particles expand to fill the space they occupy. Neither classical spacetime nor the quantum vacuum are empty (i.e., there is always something rather than nothing) -- though while the quantum vacuum is filled with particles (actually, virtual particles), classical spacetime is filled with fields. So we get quantum field theory from vacuum energy, and classical spacetime filled with particles is said to emerge from that."

But then spacetime emerges from a point? When I first came up with the idea of the expansion and contraction of space as a convection cycle, I started with the proposition that it originated as vacuum quantum fluctuation and the inherent tendency of this energy was to collapse back into its neutral state, but enough instability/interaction occurred that it left a residue, which eventually coalesced into gravitational mass, which then collapsed en-mass, as galaxies. It was only in conversations, back on the old NYTimes, Mysteries of the Universe forums, in the late 90's, that a physicist out of Chicago with similar ideas, but had learned to keep quiet about them, told me that light would do the trick as well and complete the cycle.

"Is the alphabet a platonic gift from the gods? Mathematical language is no more efficient than natural language -- it is just more precise."

And what if one of the things it misses is that nature can really be fuzzy at times and that this fuzziness is a function of binding all those parts together; Think top down?

"Is your knowledge of English blinding you to different perspectives? Possibly. The difference vis a vis mathematics is that mathematics is a universal language, practiced the same everywhere in the world."

I spend alot of time working with animals and while I have a very active language center, I've long realized they don't. So I've learned to program, or turn off mine by just having it repeat simple comments or rhetorical questions until it becomes subconscious and doesn't insist on over-riding my other senses. Senses tell you lots of things that language, even math, cannot.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

The repetitions over four years are keeping progress slow enough:

"The definition of "definition" demands that *all* definitions are taken in terms of more primitive elements, i.e., stipulative terms. There is always an unavoidable ending where some terms need be left undefined, ..."

The two naturally indefinable properties, primitive elements, are length and time. Empirical evidence consists of measures of length and time. It is observed as the acceleration of objects. It is communicated to us via photons. Photons deliver information about the acceleration of charged particles.

"If you are saying that mass can be defined in terms of space and time alone (time and distance as you put it) then mass has infinite extension and continuity."

No I have not said anything about the extension of mass. It is enough of a bite to explain to you that mass should have been a defined property as well as force. They both should have been defined in the terms made available to us by nature. Those terms are the terms in which their empirical evidence is expressed. The empirical evidence is that which photons communicate to us. In other words, in opposition to what you stated, acceleration should have been defined in terms of measured length and measured time. Its units should have been defined using meters and seconds only.

The definition of the units for mass that works is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration. In other words, mass is the inverse representation of a property that is represented to us as acceleration. Something of fundamental importance is undergoing acceleration. That something is light. The results of pursuing theory free empirical equations demonstrate the usefulness of this approach. Two of those results is the empirical form of the Lorentz transforms and the empirical form of Einstein's energy equation.

However, it remains necessary for you to learn about the difference between indefinable units and defined units. Especially the detrimental effects on physics equations of adopting artificial indefinable units. All of this is presently part of physics equations beginning with the fundamentals as presented in introductory physics texts. It starts with f=ma and the artificial indefinable status of mass.

With respect to extension, yes mass has infinite extension or to the ends of the universe whichever comes first. :-)

James Putnam

John,

" ... it seems any divergence of observation from Big Bang theory only leads to more patches."

That's because the theory is sufficiently strong to accommodate then.

(me)"'The background radiation comes from all directions...If there is a little bit of anisotropy...'"

(you) Yes and if space is flat and this is radiation coming from sources over the edge of the visible horizon, it would be coming from all directions and any anisotropy would be very minor, being slightly mottled by originating from lots of very distant sources, not a single event."

If that were true, it would be miraculous -- from what we know of physics -- that all these distant sources conspired to produce near perfect isotropy. If the distant events happened simultaneously, we could not in principle distinguish between their convergence into an isotropic universe, and isotropy that emerges from a single initial condition.

(me)"'Even quantum activity requires space a priori, and it is not satisfactory to just imagine it as a primordial background -- we want to know where it came from. Every major door we open leads to a greater room of research possibilities."

(you) And if space truly is just background, at what point do we just accept it as a priori, even if it doesn't "exist" without content?"

It's you who assumes space is just background, not I. I assume physically real spacetime.

(me) "Theorists, on the other hand, try to limit possibilities, i.e., get by on fewer assumptions. The fewer assumptions that yield the larger number of predictions, the stronger the theory."

(you)The purpose of having possibilities is to test them.

No it isn't. We can't possibly test all possibilities. That's why we test theories instead.

(me) "Well, we don't really know what a vacuum is, and quantum rules don't allow space to collapse to a point. That's why we use the term "quantum vacuum." If there is no point of certain location in a space containing two elements, there is no way that the elements can avoid fluctuating, because what we know of classical mechanics is that particles expand to fill the space they occupy. Neither classical spacetime nor the quantum vacuum are empty (i.e., there is always something rather than nothing) -- though while the quantum vacuum is filled with particles (actually, virtual particles), classical spacetime is filled with fields. So we get quantum field theory from vacuum energy, and classical spacetime filled with particles is said to emerge from that."

(you) But then spacetime emerges from a point? When I first came up with the idea of the expansion and contraction of space as a convection cycle, I started with the proposition that it originated as vacuum quantum fluctuation and the inherent tendency of this energy was to collapse back into its neutral state, but enough instability/interaction occurred that it left a residue, which eventually coalesced into gravitational mass, which then collapsed en-mass, as galaxies. It was only in conversations, back on the old NYTimes, Mysteries of the Universe forums, in the late 90's, that a physicist out of Chicago with similar ideas, but had learned to keep quiet about them, told me that light would do the trick as well and complete the cycle."

There's so many conspiracy theories on this forum that I've grown weary of debunking them. Your proposal is simply wrong *in principle.* There's no such thing as a dimensionless point in a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum, as I've explained, is necessarily 2-dimensional; it does not explain the origin of spacetime.

(me) "Is the alphabet a platonic gift from the gods? Mathematical language is no more efficient than natural language -- it is just more precise."

(you) And what if one of the things it misses is that nature can really be fuzzy at times and that this fuzziness is a function of binding all those parts together; Think top down?

What if a bullfrog had wings?

(me) "Is your knowledge of English blinding you to different perspectives? Possibly. The difference vis a vis mathematics is that mathematics is a universal language, practiced the same everywhere in the world."

(you) I spend alot of time working with animals and while I have a very active language center, I've long realized they don't. So I've learned to program, or turn off mine by just having it repeat simple comments or rhetorical questions until it becomes subconscious and doesn't insist on over-riding my other senses. Senses tell you lots of things that language, even math, cannot.

Sensory signals comprise a language, too. Unless you are communicating with your horse telepathically at a distance, you are using language.

Best,

Tom

"Photons deliver information about the acceleration of charged particles."

James, if you wish to defend this hypothesis, you must provide a description of the mechanics:

First, how do particles that are never emitted at less than the speed of light impart information about its interaction with particles that never reach the speed of light?

Second, allowing that this can happen, what does it mean?

I can't see that "undefined properties" has any relevance to the physics.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"I can't see that "undefined properties" has any relevance to the physics."

I understand that when you say 'physics' you mean theory. Defined and undefined are not of importance in theory. All properties are undefined in theoretical physics. There is no conflict between defined and undefined since only undefined properties exist in theoretical physics.

It seems that, from your message, you do not acknowledge that a photon is emitted by a charged particle that changed its velocity. Later, the photon is received by another charged particle causing that charged particle to change its velocity. The magnitude of that change is dependent upon the history of the photon. The photon's history began with the magnitude of the change of velocity of the first charged particle. The photon began its existence as a result of acceleration and ends its existence by causing acceleration. That effect is its mechanical information. There is nothing to explain about the birth of a photon. It is caused to come into existence. No one knows what cause is.

James Putnam

"The photon began its existence as a result of acceleration ..."

Relative to what?

"It is caused to come into existence. No one knows what cause is."

Then no one knows what physics is.

What we do know, however, is that every photon appears to be emitted at the speed of light. Where's the acceleration?

Tom,

""The photon began its existence as a result of acceleration ...""

"Relative to what?"

I made it clear in my message, if you read it: "...a photon is emitted by a charged particle that changed its velocity. Later, the photon is received by another charged particle causing that charged particle to change its velocity.

""It is caused to come into existence. No one knows what cause is.""

"Then no one knows what physics is."

You mean one knows what cause is but that does not stop theorists, they invent theoretical causes. Cause is not included in physics equations except in general. The symbol that represents cause in general is the equals sign.

"What we do know, however, is that every photon appears to be emitted at the speed of light. Where's the acceleration?"

Refer above for the statement that the acceleration belonged to the charged particle.

James Putnam