Chasing the black holes of the ocean

John,

I didn't make my message clear. My statement was directed to Tom in response to one of his messages to you. He didn't pursue it further, but, since you mentioned my name in one of your messages that concerned pre-cursers to relativity theory, I wanted to let you know that there was empirical evidence in the form of patterns of changes of velocities of objects that showed relativistic type effects before Einstein entered. There were several persons actively moving toward understanding the evidence. The difference between them and Einstein was that they tested for an ether, etc. Einstein removed the matter from the experimental side to the theoretical side. He made it impossible to falsify his theory because it rests upon effects to space and time, neither of which are accessible for experimentation. We were moved away from relying on the patterns in changes of velocity of objects to patterns of changes to space and time. His mental construct has taken precedence over empirical evidence. The door was opened and anything unempirical that one can imagine that can be put on a chalkboard and shown to not be falsifiable by the empirical evidence is potential theory. The purpose of this message is to add my opinion about who was on the right track, to the historical evidence mentioned in my other message. That is all.

James Putnam

James,

Thanks. It is difficult to argue with those who think measurements are proof of some metaphysical basis, because they have the measurements as proof. Sometimes a ruler is just a ruler.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"Then, James, you would have a new theory that subsumes relativity and quantum mechanics, and makes new predictions --necessarily makes new predictions, because this new theory is bigger than the other two, more inclusive of physical phenomena. You would not have theory-free physics.

What do you predict, and how would it be demonstrated? What other experimental result wold prove it wrong?"

This is misleading. I say there is more than one solution to relativity type effects and that I can demonstrate it up to and including correcting e=mc2 and you claim that I could not have done this unless I have solved all of nature. Also, it must be repeated that predictions do not validate theory. All reasonable theories are designed to fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence. It is the patterns and not the theory that makes predictions possible. It is a matter of extrapolating and interpolating known patterns.

I have theory free physics and that is a huge advance away from the mysticism of theory. An example is to end the belief in space time in favor of properties that can be tested. All properties that are defined directly from their empirical evidence can be tested. That achievement is a huge advance away from the mystical world of theory.

Another matter that needs to be repeated over and over is that the theoretical adoption of artificial fundamental indefinable properties forces disunity into physics equations. If the artificial indefinable properties are not corrected and made defined, then the theorist steps up to their chalkboard and adds something unempirical that can appear to be regaining unity. Unity that is based upon unempirical imaginings is theoretical unity. Theory free physics displays fundamental unity right from its beginning and continues to show unity throughout the development of higher level equations.

Non-falsifiable, unempirical inventions of the mind are not needed. That is a great advance away from the mysticism of theory. The evidence that theory free physics is theory free is that all of its units are derived using the units of empirical evidence only. The units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.

My replacement for e=mc2 has units that consist only of combinations of meters and seconds. The invented artificial units of theoretical physics go away and with them theory goes away. This occurs because theory is represented in physics equations by those invented artificial indefinable units such as kilograms and degrees.

James Putnam

Tom,

You claim; My statement ...

"Einstein developed relativity from no patterns of activity except those he created mathematically in his mind."

... is simply true.

Can you really not see the obviously wrong assumption you're using? Thinking does not require maths! Calculators clearly can't think, but you're inferring that novelists, artists and philosophers can't. Slipping in 'developed' is a qualifier that falsifies the important point.

As Einstein said, he first conceived relativity heuristically. He created nothing 'mathematically', that came later. We all think differently, which is good, but you seem have some automatic assumption that cardinalised symbols alone are fundamental, so a block to accepting that important and creative thought can be non-mathematical. That is patently wrong. If you disagree I challenge you to prove it.

So; Einstein conceived, which is the point, relativity by the power of pure thought. And also face the cherry you chose not to pick; As he said, he 'stopped understanding it one the mathematicians got hold of it'. He finally regained that understanding by conceptual thought in 1952.

Maths being 'complete' does not have to mean it accurately describes nature. The maths of QM are as complete and precise as those of SR. Does that make them right and relativity wrong? Neither consistently describe nature. There is however yet another complete set that coherently and logically does both. Will you simply deny it and ignore logic as it's different to SR's?

Peter

" ... it must be repeated that predictions do not validate theory. All reasonable theories are designed to fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence."

Not true, James. A theory could be just a good guess.

"It is the patterns and not the theory that makes predictions possible. It is a matter of extrapolating and interpolating known patterns."

Nope. It is a matter of correspondence between theory and evidence. Data by themselves do not have meaning. The noise detected by Penzias and Wilson that is the cosmic microwave background radiation would simply be another unexplained "anomaly" without the big bang theory of cosmology which predicts it.

Best,

Tom

" ... much as Plato viewed nature as imperfect examples of universal ideals."

John, if it's Plato you want, Plato you get:

Consider Plato's allegory of the cave. We live in this dark place chained to the wall,and the only glimpse we have of reality, are the shadows cast on the wall from a fire behind us.

We grow to think that the shadows are real. Should we be released, what we thought the shadows were all about would not resemble what we see when we walk into the sunlight.

"Then we get ideas like spacetime, where the interlocking nature of measurements of duration and distance, under conditions of velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc. are considered to be discoveries of this underlaying platonic reality of these ideal forms."

You just don't see what the light of day illuminates. Enjoy your shadows.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

"Maths being 'complete' does not have to mean it accurately describes nature."

A mathematically complete theory does not mean "maths are complete." It means that a closed logical judgement of specific natural phenomena corresponds 1 to 1 with the predicted phenomena.

"The maths of QM are as complete and precise as those of SR."

That isn't even close to being true.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"" ... it must be repeated that predictions do not validate theory. All reasonable theories are designed to fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence.""

"Not true, James. A theory could be just a good guess."

""It is the patterns and not the theory that makes predictions possible. It is a matter of extrapolating and interpolating known patterns.""

"Nope. It is a matter of correspondence between theory and evidence. Data by themselves do not have meaning. The noise detected by Penzias and Wilson that is the cosmic microwave background radiation would simply be another unexplained "anomaly" without the big bang theory of cosmology which predicts it."

The theory didn't predict it. The red shift indicates that the universe may be expanding. Shrinking the universe back to a small size leads to a point when photons were released. They were released because atoms formed. Whether or not the universe is expanding is yet to be determined. However, anticipating that there was a time when atoms formed is not a surprise to anyone's theory. Behind all of this are patterns in empirical evidence that are the basis for the form of the mathematical equations upon which such interpretations are based. The interpretations presently include guesses because that is the stuff of which theory is made. Might a guess be a good guess? It has a chance if the patterns in observed empirical evidence are accurately modeled by the forms of the equations.

I presume that you mean to argue that your two examples did not require knowledge of patterns observed in empirical evidence? I argue back 'No way."

James Putnam

"I presume that you mean to argue that your two examples did not require knowledge of patterns observed in empirical evidence? I argue back 'No way.'"

Okay then -- what would the Penzias-Wilson discovery mean if there were no big bang theory of cosmology? How would one know?

James,

I do wish you would cite your sources.

You write, "I stated that, before Einstein, relativity type effects were observed in patterns of changes of velocity. There was no follow-up on that claim. So, here is one I want to mention: The ratio of electric charge to mass was known by cathode ray experiments. It was observed in the patterns of change of velocity at high velocities that the ratio decreased. It was concluded that this decrease was due to mass increasing with increasing velocity."

Mass to charge ratio can be calculated from F = ma.

The rest mass of an electron is so difficult to calculate, because one cannot weigh it on a scale; one has to measure how kinetic energy adds to the rest energy, and convert it equivalent mass, which requires special relativity.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"A mathematically complete theory does not mean "maths are complete." It means that a closed logical judgement of specific natural phenomena corresponds 1 to 1 with the predicted phenomena."

But you can't logically claim that when the specific natural phenomena only corresponds 1 to 1 with and supports the postulates. I again point out that the evidence you cite DOES NOT also correspond with your particular favoured 'interpretation' or those postulates.

Other interpretations are however possible which DO correspond!

Because you've wedded the 'explanation' to the axioms in your mind you now can't separate them. Yet they are separable, as the unfalsified one is otherwise riding free on the back of the other.

Let's be absolutely clear; ALL the evidence uniquely supporting SR is evidence of the POSTULATES and the postulates alone. Things like 'space time' and 'length contraction' are descriptions that can also have other perfectly (and more) logical explanations so can't have that free ride.

The length contraction 'hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether...but simply as a "gift from above,"!'

Do you not agree that there can be both 'real' and 'relative' speeds? So cases of RELATIVE c+v, i.e; 'cases with a velocity greater than that of light... play only some such part as that of figures with imaginary co-ordinates in geometry.'

Now I hope you're sitting down, as both those statements are direct quotes from Hermann Minkowski as the foundations of his conception space-time. I agree with them entirely. There is a more consistent interpretation than the popular one Einstein knew was incomplete. Thus his 1952 agreement with Minkowski;

"Not to leave a yawning void anywhere we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible...I will use...the word "substance".

What I need to understand is, what is it preventing you from looking at, or even in the direction of, that possibility?

Peter

"But you can't logically claim that when the specific natural phenomena only corresponds 1 to 1 with and supports the postulates."

That makes absolutely no sense, Peter. But now I understand why you don't know what "contained entirely within the postulates" mean.

Peter,

You write:

"Thus his 1952 agreement with Minkowski;

'Not to leave a yawning void anywhere we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible...I will use...the word 'substance."

That's not a sudden epiphany that Einstein had in 1952. All along he asserted "There is no space empty of the field."

"What I need to understand is, what is it preventing you from looking at, or even in the direction of, that possibility?"

The possibility? I consider it a scientific certainty that spacetime is physically real and that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe. Just like Minkowski and Einstein.

Happy now?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

So we seem to be back to your "I understand better than you" argument. And you suggest that is scientific?! It's not only belief based but wrong. I certainly agree that the popular 'understanding' is quite different. But mine also has 40 years studying Einstein and has uncovered all the consistent empirical evidence for his conception. Be honest, yours has none, and you've consistently failed the challenge to offer any; To clarify the point;

The postulates may be seen as a set of predictions, certainly axioms. They have proved consistently correct and have wide supporting evidence.

All else is an attempt to find a consistent description, geometry, and mathematics to provide a logic for those postulated effects. Absolutely none of this other descriptive part is directly evidenced, so there may be other descriptions possible to (even better!) support and rationalise the postulates.

The description I can't persuade you to even look at is very successful at doing so, and also, finally, shows that a slightly modified interpretation of QM is in reality fully consistent with SR, and, when co-joined, GR (with a coherent description of space-time in line with Minkowski's and QM) is found entirely compatible.

Now it would be nice if somebody would offer some scientific falsification of the revised description rather than just run a mile and throw around frankly rather childish insulting comments. Even Pentcho doesn't do that! I know you can do better. Or is that all you can now muster? Is that really too much to expect on what is supposed to be a fundamental 'physics' site?

Peter

"The postulates may be seen as a set of predictions ..."

No they can't. Postulates are a system of axioms, like those five that support Euclidean geometry. And like the axioms of arithmetic.

Here are the postulates of special relativity.

The predictions of special relativity are derived from those postulates, as analogously, the theorems of Euclidean geometry are derived from Euclid's postulates.

Tom,

Your supposed link to the 'postulates' of SR was no such thing. If you thought you'd learned Einstein's postulates from that 1990's Colorado personal and quite distorted view, wholly ignoring the postulates themselves, then you will have been grossly mislead.

I really can't understand how you seem so prepared to completely ignore Einstein's own words and meaning and embrace some far lesser mortals own interpretation. And even to post them here and call them the 'postultes! It seems your first task should be to re-aquaint yourself with his ACTUAL postulates, preferrably in german and with the two slightly varying main literal translations, and keep those preserved, sacrosanct and separate from all else that followed.

Then read ALL his long and comprehensive 1952 paper (preferably with the hundreds of other papers, speeches etc. I suggest only then will you get a true insight to the process of development of his thoughts, wherein lies the key. (It's certainly not in the maths!).

I agree, the predictions are entirely implicit within, so all emerge directly from, the postulates, which is precisely what I wrote in less words.

So, we have the predictions of the postulates all well proven. But, as I pointed out, NONE OF THE REST IS!! The rest is just a description offering some kind of logical explanation, never ceasing to be arguable, never allowing any correspondence with any possible interpretation of QM, and never able to explain a host of anomalies such as superluminal quasar jet pulses up to 46c.

So is an amended description which also DOES achieve ALL those and removes all possible paradox, not worth studying to see if it can be falsified?

And, if you think not, please offer my some understanding of why you think not, apart from conflict with a 'belief system'.

Peter

Peter, this is beyond ridiculous. What do you suggest are the postulates of special relativity?

Tom,

"You just don't see what the light of day illuminates. Enjoy your shadows."

Shadows are patterns as well. You are convinced spacetime is not another shadow on the wall of the cave, yet it is one more pattern illuminated by the light.

"Okay then -- what would the Penzias-Wilson discovery mean if there were no big bang theory of cosmology?"

Possibly a solution to Olber's paradox; The light of ever more distant sources, redshifted off the visible spectrum. As you say, " A theory could be just a good guess."

"I consider it a scientific certainty that spacetime is physically real and that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe. Just like Minkowski and Einstein."

Fortunately for Einstein and Minkowski that they didn't live to see the Multiverse.

Regards,

john M

Tom:

"I do wish you would cite your sources:

You write, "I stated that, before Einstein, relativity type effects were observed in patterns of changes of velocity. There was no follow-up on that claim. So, here is one I want to mention: The ratio of electric charge to mass was known by cathode ray experiments. It was observed in the patterns of change of velocity at high velocities that the ratio decreased. It was concluded that this decrease was due to mass increasing with increasing velocity.""

Mass increasing with increased velocity

"Walter Kaufmann began to experiment with beta rays using a device similar to a cathode ray tube, where the source of the electrons was the decay of radium that was placed in an evacuated container. (See Fig. 1) Such rays emitted from radium were called "Becquerel rays" at that time. Contrary to the then known cathode rays which reached speeds only up to 0.3c, c being the speed of light, Becquerel rays reached velocities up to 0.9c. However, since beta particles have different velocities, the radiation was inhomogeneous. Therefore, Kaufmann applied electric and magnetic fields aligned parallel to each other, so that the deflections caused by them were perpendicular to each other. Their impacts on a photographic plate produced a deflection curve, whose individual points corresponded to a certain velocity and a certain mass of the electrons. By reversing the charge on the condenser, thus inverting the electric field, two symmetric curves could be obtained, whose center line determined the direction of the magnetic deflection.[A 4][A 5]

Kaufmann published a first analysis of his data in 1901 - he actually was able to measure a decrease of the charge-to-mass ratio, thus demonstrating that mass or momentum increases with velocity. ..."

Also: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Max Born,1962 revised version, Pages 212&213.

James Putnam