Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

John Merryman

Eckard,

Actually what I said is tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. This is not any general reference to future or past, but a specific, common occurrence and the effect creating it.

Time is an effect, not foundational, so possibly a way to understand it is as it functions.

As I relate it to the concept of temperature, consider how you would perceive temperature. You know it is energy being transmitted as the rate at which lots of molecules and even their atomic basis are vibrating and so shedding energy. In a pot of water they are also moving about.

Now in this perception, did the idea of change and thus time necessarily occur? I would say not necessarily. There is just the impression of activity in a particular frame.

As change does occur, how would you measure it? There could be lots of methods. If you could attach a meter to each molecule and record every vibration, that would be one way. You could record the rate steam leaves the pot, or the slowly declining weight of this body of water, as it boils away.

Now all that is really occurring is changes of state. Energy and water radiated or evaporated and gone elsewhere. Stuff moved about. None of this occurred in some extra dimension. It all happened in the present. One set of relations evolved into another.

So this state of the present moves from one configuration to another. We think of it as the present moving from past to future, but it was actually these changes occurring in the present, so it is they which go from being potential, to actual, to residual.

Neither past or future physically exist, because they are not present. It is only our sense of memory and continuity which makes this complicated, since we are like just one of those molecules of water, bouncing from one encounter to the next, in what we experience as a single sequence of events and our memory is that record of encounters we experienced. So we have this sense of moving from distant past events to recent past events and think of it as then moving to future events, but past is residual and future is potential, so it doesn't make sense to think of it as moving from residual to potential, but then we have forgotten all the past possibilities that didn't happen and only remember what did actually occur and so those past events now seem more real than they are, given the physical material moves to other events and there is only the dust and smoke of memory, as these events move ever further into the past, driven by that continuous activity of what is present.

Hope this helps some.

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

John M,

Davies doesn't call time an effect. Perhaps you are at best one of very few people to believe so. I rather understand elapsed time as the measurable delay between a moment A attributed to a cause, and moment B attributed to its effect. This distance is always positive if counted from B to A. In so far, elapsed time is indeed similar to temperature which also has a natural absolute zero. Units of elapsed time are arbitrarily chosen as also are units of temperature. Both scales are reasonably considered continuous (IR).

However, the natural zero of elapsed time, i.e. the actual moment cannot be pinpointed at a particular moment, and intervals of time can endlessly be added. When Newton imagined God winding up again and again his big clock the universe, he attributed God as the cause to time. Your idea of time as an effect of motion like temperature provides a still naive but already less mystical explanation of obvious simultaneity. I doubt that such speculative analogy is of any use. Instead it might be necessary to clarify how event-related and now-related time relate to each other and to reality. Doesn't a question become foundational if something of relevance can be based on its solution?

Regards,

Eckard

John Merryman

Eckard,

Physics values precision over explanation, so measurement matters more than what is being measured. What is being measured are particular events that come into being and dissolve, but what creates them is that underlaying process and energy. Remember energy is conserved, even if it doesn't have some exact shape or form. So the present is that energy, but all that can be measured is the form it takes. So measures of time are that energy transitioning/evolving from one form to another. Duration is just what the energy is doing between one event and the next.

As I argued in the recent contest, not only is reality that dichotomy of energy and information, but it manifests in our physiology, with a central nervous system to process information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy. This then manifests on many aspects of our social functions, with academics and other thought based disciplines largely concerned with products of the information process and thus distinctions, more than the dynamic creating them. So there is a natural bias toward platonic ideal forms, even though they are evidently emergent. Since we can't measure the basis, the reductionist position is to just ignore it. "Shut up and calculate."

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

Steve Agnew,

On Sep. 13, 2014 @ 00:18 GMT you stated in Why Quantum:

1) There is a past because we have a memory of it, and so the matter of our memory represents an object of past time.

2) All objects represent past time and that is called proper time.

3) The present moment is just as you [John M] suggest, the second dimension of time, action time.

4) The future only exists as the possibilities of an object and there is no single future that is certain.

While I am aware that mainstream physics postulates a fatalistic closed block of time and space which is the opposite of (4), I as an engineer cannot see any good reason to perform Fourier analysis of a signal by an integration that includes not yet existing in reality future data.

Writing in (1) "there is a past because" you did perhaps mean "there is a past, we know it because". I understand the past as something objective. As Shannon explained it, past processes are unchangeable but in principle measurable. I accept that you used the word "memory" for what I prefer calling material "traces".

Your interpretation in (2) of past time as proper time is close to my view that elapsed time includes all past and has therefore a natural point of reference, the actual moment. Presumably, you are still following the convention to count time increasing from earlier to later. Elapsed time counts in opposite direction, and it doesn't relate to an arbitrarily chosen event.

When you used the expression "proper time" in (2), did you distinguish it from coordinate time in the sense of SR?

The "action time" that you introduced in (3) seems to be meant as an actual value at the scale of conventional time. Aren't you aware that conventional time is block time?

I agree on that the conventional time scale is insufficient as to describe reality. However, if you dare introducing a point on a scale that is moving relative to it as a dimension, then I would expect you to clarify what the notion dimension does mean in physics. Orthogonality?

I consider Fig. 1 of my essay 1364 a more radical alternative that clearly reveals how the abstract block time differs from original reality.

Eckard

Lee Bloomquist

For some reason years ago I bought a book from a library sale for an old corporate research lab in physics-- Geoffrey M. Dixon's Division Algebras: Octonions, Quaternions, Complex Numbers and the Algebraic Design of Physics.

The idea seemed so simple. The Universe is made of distributed information systems, which follow the basic law of the Universe: Whatever's been created, can be destroyed.

I keep scanning the book for high school student level reading, but can find none. Turning the pages is like looking at a kaleidoscope. I'm blinded by spinning fibers of light and color. They draw me closer and closer the faster I turn the pages of the book. The pages spin like a wireframe water wheel, in an architecture of glittering mathematical intricacies.

Clearly, there was structure enough here, and a clear description of how one creates systems from parts, without damaging any of the parts.

And, how one can destroy a system simply by disassembling it, part by part, without damaging a single part.

For example, multiplying would be a model for assembling a system. Dividing would then be disassembling the system, very cleanly, by factoring a part away.

Each part was never harmed during assembly.

And each part was never harmed during disassembly.

That was all of the story I needed. Dixon had handled all the details.

And now it seems the same has happened in string theory.

So it seems

The Universe isn't made of particles and neither is it made of strings.

The Universe is made of systems that can be nondestructively assembled and disassembled into parts.

The Division Algebras model this kind of Universe in terms of multiplication and division.

John Merryman

Lee,

We exist at a very complex, intermediate level. Would those recycling information systems exist in an even broader spectrum of creation and dissolution? What is conserved is energy, but our only knowledge of it is as information. It seems the breakdown in our information models, uncertainty principle, quantum theory, etc, are because the dynamic energy cannot be fully encompassed/modeled within the context of an inherently static information paradigm.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

cannot be fully encompassed/modeled within the context of an inherently static information paradigm, no matter how small the scale, or complex the pattern.

Lee Bloomquist

All of this is the context for Time.

As illustrated by the Twins' paradox from Relativity, the data show each thing has its own time. And in such a context it would be easy to install more structure into Time (for further mathematical analysis)--

Now = ( theUniqueMonadOfTime, Now )

where

theUniqueMonadOfTime = ( nonstandardPast, standardPresent, nonstandardFuture)

("nonstandard" per Abraham Robinson's book.

"non-wellFoundedSets" in Vicious Circles by Barwise and Moss)

And,

Each thing that exists has its own Now.

(Later the Nows will be linked together by various gearing interactions between relative possibilities.)

The process is "unfolding."

Unfolding a Now, we find aUniqueMonadOfTime, and the Now is like a flower--

The flower unfolds, but all the while, it is still one and itself, never stopping being the flower it is during the entire unfoldment.

Unfolding a "Now," you, the being, are at each instant always within the same Now, as long as you exist. So when you unfold a Now, Now stays with you throughout the entire process. That is to say, as something that exists in the Universe, you have to yourself a unique experience of unfolding your Now.

Each cycle of unfoldment may reveal a UniqueMonadOfTime, if you are so lucky as to maintain existence in the Universe.

After all, anything created, can be destroyed in a very clean fashion, as above.

But in this Universe, my awareness of Now unfolds into UniqueMonadsOfTime, one after another in a stream of unfoldment...

"UniqueMonadOfTime"

And so on.

While for each Unique Monad, I am aware of experiencing Now as always being itself within me, being for me the same and unchanging throughout the process of unfolding UniqueMonadsOfTime, for each thing that exists in the Universe.

John Merryman

Lee,

Time is how we experience this process of assembly and disassembly. Since we are only one point of perspective, we frame this process into a continuum of events and so we think of it as this now moving from past to future, yet it is these configurations being created and dissolved which come and go, so it is actually the future becoming past. To wit, it isn't the earth traveling some vector or dimension from the event that was yesterday to the event that will be tomorrow, but this planet turning relative to its light source which creates and dissolves these events called days.

As you say, each event is an unfolding, a blooming. Like the previous event was the seed casing from which the current event springs. That is because the energy is leaving that prior event, like the energy leaves a day, as the sun moves around to other's sunrises, so it fades from ours, as the new one gathers force. We think of one event leading to the next, but this sequence isn't causal. Yesterday doesn't cause today, but simply precedes it. Energy is causal. Light shining on a spinning planet causes these events of our perception called days. and it pours into us from all directions and we radiate it back out in all directions. It is just that we are mobile organisms and not plants, so we think of direction and momentum as being more elemental than they are, so we like sequence and narrative as explanations. Nature is much more thermodynamic.

Regards,

John M

Lee Bloomquist

I get the idea from Dixon's work on the normed division algebras that more basic than particles, waves, or strings are *systems* made of parts, which can be assembled (by multiplication) and disassembled (by division). But this still leaves us with the parts to think about. I will make the attempt!

I get the idea from Barwise's work on non-well founded sets that a formula for time which is maybe more intuitive, but less amenable to calculation, would be the stream Now = (monadOfTime, Now). Where by "monadOfTime" I mean Abraham Robinson's nonStandard monad. MonadOfTime has a central standard point and a halo of nonStandard points. To be compatible with the received model of time as point moving on line, in front of the standard point in the monad there must be a halo of nonStandard points I've taken to calling the nonStandardFuture. And behind the standard point in the monad there must be a halo of nonStandard points I've taken to calling the nonStandardPast. Which in effect posits a tiny room of time that accompanies each system (something different than a manifold).

After thinking about it I have to admit that assembly and disassembly of systems comprised of parts is not really the creation and destruction of the parts themselves. Some more thinking about it--

From Herbert Green's, student of Max Born, book Matrix Mechanics I get the idea that complex numbers in quantum physics

represent possibilities.

Again from Barwise (Information and Impossibilities), I get the idea that a possibility is really a possible *state.* I now realize that when I say that a system comprises parts, I most likely connote that the "parts" are "particles." But that would be wrong. The parts involved are really *states." Further a system of states is really itself a state (actually, a "possible state" or a "possibility").

Now back to creation and destruction of system parts. I wonder if what I'm seeing inside the above tiny room of time for each system is what's called "wave function collapse" in the Schrodinger picture (where the wave function changes continuously in time). However to visualize the collapse I have to see it by looking at the Heisenberg picture, where the wave function is constant in time. Here's the idea:

The Born rule is a map from a complex number to a real number:

c -> r r

Amrit Sorli

time has only a math exitence, see www.fopi.infoAttachment #1: 1_On_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdf

Jim Snowdon

Things happen. Real things, occur. Real things, endure. Real things, happen.

Time is not a real thing.

What actually happens, is that duration elapses. Our clocks measure duration elapsing. Our conscious experience is of duration elapsing.

The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the true nature of time.

We do have motion in our timeless universe.

Pentcho Valev

Feynman Wrong about the Twin Paradox

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

Einstein also taught that the youthfulness of the travelling twin was due to the turn-around acceleration:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918, Albert Einstein: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

John Norton teaches the same story:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Feynman, Einstein and Norton are wrong of course but the problem is more serious than that. We all live in a schizophrenic world where the youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turn-around acceleration, on the one hand, and is not due to the turn-around acceleration, on the other:

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev

Abc2000ro: "Why is Einstein solution to the twin paradox different from the one on the internet? The solution to the twin paradox found on the internet is that the twin on Earth is on 1 frame the entire journey, while the twin in space is in 2 frames for the duration of the journey. However, in his own paper:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity

Einstein gives a totally different explanation. He says that what matters is the moment of acceleration. So even if the acceleration happens in 1 second from 0 to 290.000km/s that's the only second that truly matters. So if Einstein says like this, how can anyone bring other explanations? (...) You can talk about the frame switching without saying anything about acceleration. You just draw 2 lines in a Minkowski diagram and that's it. Then you just apply the equations of special relativity and presumably you obtain the correct result. But Einstein says otherwise. That you have to use the equations of general relativity for the moment of acceleration (even though it is only 1 second or 1 year) and only then you obtain the correct results. So who should I trust?"

Abc2000ro asks the fatal question. Einstein was well aware that, unless the acceleration ("gravitational potential") camouflage is used, the clock (twin) paradox is an obvious absurdity:

Nowadays most Einsteinians do not understand the problem but clever (even though dishonest) Einsteinians do:

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Pentcho Valev

The twin paradox has a simpler (one way) version in Einstein's 1905 paper:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?"

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from the respective system, either clock runs slower than the other. That is, for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock; for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the stationary clock at B.

So Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that:

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system.

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that:

moving clocks run slow, that is, travel into the future is possible.

Pentcho Valev

Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible".

Comment:

Pentcho Valev 3 months ago:

Jim Al-Khalili is no time traveller in this experiment - the postulates of special relativity do NOT entail time travel into the future. The confusion goes back to 1905 when Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow at all from the postulates):

This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc) enchanted the public:

John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

_________________________________________________

[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

LLOYD OKOKO

Every era of the scientific realm is endowed with masters or progenitors ;each with his own truth that cannot be ignored.The Upanisads constitute an often overlooked set of that truth that must needs be explored.

Best Wishes,

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana: The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turn-around acceleration, but at the same time it is not due to the turn-around acceleration:

Subtle practitioners of doublethink

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail that, as shown in this picture, a single MOVING CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively. However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's postulates entail that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS TIME ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's 1905 postulates do not entail that moving clocks run more slowly than stationary clocks, or that the travelling twin will return younger than his stationary brother.

Pentcho Valev

Georgina Woodward

Important to realize is that the clock device itself is never seen but an image is produced, from the sensory data emitted or reflected from the device. Sensory data is received and processed by the observer and the output of that is what is seen, within a space-time Image reality output.

So to clearly illustrate what is happening and avoid the confusion of time the regular interval change of hands on clock face or digital output could be replaced by a not temporally associated, visual, Object universe configuration origin tag ( CO -tag ). Have a single coloured em source that changes tag at appropriate intervals, a symbol of any kind (e,g, geometric shapes, animal outlines, alphabet etc.) from a sequence, representing the actualised configuration of the Object universe, each symbol matched to a colour chart. The tags received can be converted into the matching colours. With overlaid texture to indicate observed red or blue shift, that is showing alteration of data input rate, not alteration of data CO-tag

Motion towards the source increases the frequency of encountering em waves, so data is input sooner ( data receipt delay reduction ) but this is also advancing in time terms of the experienced present output, as younger data is being incorporated into the present that is output. Due to change in spatial position relative to source. Moving away from the source deceases the frequency of waves being intercepted, data is input later ( data receipt delay increase ) but also older data is incorporated into the present output due to change in spacial position relative to the source.

There are thus differences in the colours of the outputs, related to the tags of the sensory data received. And different textures relate to advances and delays in receipt.

The space-time output produced from data emanating from a number of differently located sources in relative motion will be a multicolored and textured 'map' indicating the differences in Object universe configuration origin of the recieved data and alterations in signal input rates of the various signals. Whereas each uni-temporal -Now relates to just one CO stamp and one corresponding colour. All of the output reality represented by the coloured textured space-time map is within uni-temporal -Now, the existing configuration of the Object universe.

As the speed of light is so fast this only becomes important at high speeds and at large distances.

Georgina Woodward

Having replaced the clock time in the output space-time Image reality, replacing it with a not temporally associated tag, it is easy to see that the reality that emerges from processing of that data is an amalgamation of data pertaining to different configurations of the Object universe, an emergent space-time map.

The sense of vision that allows production and utilization of such maps is an important survival attribute for living organisms. That the map is emergent space time is just a consequence of its production from received sensory data but that distant objects also appear smaller due to visual angle enables decisions about proximity of predators, competitors and resources to be 'calculated' which is greatly advantageous for a living organism. Not only does light take minutely longer to reach an organisms sensory system, so does it take time for a predator or competitor to traverse that space interval and it also takes time for the organism to move itself towards resources. By time I am referring to sequential change in the arrangements of the constituents of the Object universe.

Non simultaneity of events for different observers can be regarded as a difference in their emergent space-time maps that have been produced from sensory data within the uni-temporal external reality.It is not an indication that the events witnessed in each observers present still exist as interactions of substantial bodies in external reality, IE persisting for all time within an external space-time continuum.

Steve Agnew

It is very nice to see how close you are getting to the truth and all without math.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT

"Important to realize is that the clock device itself is never seen but an image is produced, from the sensory data emitted or reflected from the device. Sensory data is received and processed by the observer and the output of that is what is seen, within a space-time Image reality output."

Remember also...all objects are clocks. Some objects are more useful for keeping time because they have very regular actions, but all objects tell time. You need not tie telling time to a particular sensation like sight. After all, our neural clock tells reasonably good time and that clock we sense as moments of thought along with the decay of memory.

There are two fundamentally incompatible ways of telling time; quantum and gravity. Once science can tell the same time between gravity and quantum times, presumably that will be a unification of those forces.

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

"the more intelligent, the less sane."? Could this provide a link between G. Cantor and Einstein? No, I strongly object. While Cantor's "more than infinite" is as insane as is Einstein's "Relativity of time", their fallacies have clearly traceable historical roots and are still accepted as hard to grasp genial ideas, Georgina and Steve managed distracting from the logical contradiction your sources pointed to and mystify the notion of time. Are they therefore more intelligent?

Steve can perhaps not provide links to serious arguments for his guess "incompatible ways of telling time; quantum and gravity" in order to explain twin and grandfather paradoxes away.

I maintain my opinion: Revelation of mandatory fallacies is a hard but necessary work, even if the required line of reasoning is seemingly obvious.

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard and Pentcho,

the relativity of time is not insane, but has been misinterpreted by its early discoverers. The misinterpretation has been taught alongside the insight and that is the problem IMHO. It is necessary in the case of Einstein's work to replace certain aspects of the interpretation with something that works better. I accept Tom's argument that Einstein's work is a complete scientific model that successfully matches experimental results to the theory. Nevertheless the paradoxes show that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. Einstein knew it and SR and GR are not the final model he wanted.

As you may see from my most recent posts on other pages I am certainly not mystifying time but demystifying it. In fact time can be completely removed if desired and mere sequence of configurations of founadational space and mix of apparent configurations in emergent space-time be considered instead.

The experienced present of the observer is the output of the processing of received sensory data, which is always within the only existing configuration of the Object universe. That is not difficult or mysterious. Its like Present-ism but conserved with the underlying foundational reality, the source of the Presents observed. Its saying there is no substantial past, there is no substantial future but one substantial arrangement within which there is potential sensory data to form emergent space-time maps. Those maps are representations made from an amalgamation of data originating in different previously existent configurations.

This means, it turns out, the Present is not the division between past and future as you have often asserted but uni-temporal Now (the temporal pseudonym of the existing Object universe configuration) is the division. It is the causality front where interaction between particles and objects happens and potential sensory sensory data is produced.

As for intelligence and insanity I think they are irrelevant. This explanatory framework has taken years of trial and error ( I have probably been wrong as often if not more often than I have been right) and near relentless tenacity to develop. As witnessed by the countless pages, I have no ides how many, posted on this site, including the development of the explanatory framework diagrams.

The explanatory framework requires that all current emergent, experienced or portrayed, space-time Image realities exist within the uni-temporal Object reality. If represented by sets this is strange, perhaps a unique mathematical structure. Which maybe why it has eluded discovery for a long time. Hopefully you will consider it more favorably than Cantors strange sets. I don't feel it is insane to suggest such a structure as it is a necessary consequence of the explanatory framework that works. It must be kept in mind that foundational space Object reality and emergent space-time Image reality are distinctly different categories.

Georgina Woodward

Anonymous replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT, that was me, Georgina

Sorry I keep getting logged out.

Georgina Woodward

Dear Eckard and Pentcho,

I meant to say -Its like Present-ism but concerned with the underlying foundational reality,....... Rather than 'conserved'.

Thinking on I do think it is necessary to have some doubt that what is observed is the external reality itself. Some experience of visual disturbance whether by drugs, medications, alcohol, or mental illness would aid clarity of thought regarding the status of the output of the human visual perception system. Though that doubt may be regarded as insanity by some it is in fact correct and sane clarity of thought. Whereas the general belief that what is seen is the external substantial reality itself, as if we have windows in our skull, is mass delusion. Richard Feynman was a very intelligent man and yet he trivialized the philosophical debate over whether you see only light or objects themselves. Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers. Which seems to have been a popular response with his audience, who no doubt share his unfortunate dismissive"sane"opinion.

Akinbo Ojo

Georgina,

It is unfortunate the comical statements of Richard Feynman on "When you are looking at something do you see only light or do you see the object?"

Can something be seen without light?

Can light be seen without something?

He (Richard) is always seeking to distort the truth. Seeing is just a sensory perception just as sound is. Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object.

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

I agree that sensation is a constant stream of neural impulses that are what informs us about the world.

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 11:04 GMT "Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object."

However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense. As you said, some objects we do not see, but like a transparent window, we know a window by other sensation. All that we do sense are objects and their backgrounds and those neural impulses represent time delays.

Time delays as neural spikes from exchange of object matter fill sensation and are the most primitive form of time and space and motion emerge from these streams of neural spikes. A major flaw of relativity is in setting time as a mere coordinate of spacetime because in so doing, all motion becomes deterministic geodesic paths.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Akinbo, Steve, All,

the question put to professor Feynman was a profound one. Another question might be: As we are receiving light emitted or reflected from objects, does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality).

Re your questions Akinbo's Q1. "Can something be seen without light?" It depends on what you mean by 'things' and 'seen'. Light is needed to form visual representations of objects that are in external reality. However sound can also be used as by dolphins and bats and some blind humans.Visions and hallucinations that give the appearance of things that do not exist as objects in external reality can also occur. Not formed from data from the external environment but internally generated.

Re. Akinbo's Q2."Can light be seen without something?" Light can be seen without receiving it from the external environment. If the visual cortex is stimulated that can be sensed as sensations of light called phosphenes.Visual sensations produced by intracortical microstimulation of the human occipital cortex Lights associated with migraine and epileptic aura are also internaly generated. This is all fascinating to me and suggests that what we regard as light is usually the output of stimulation of the retina and thence the brain, not a quality of the carrier of the sensory data itself. The representation that is generated allows us to navigate, it provides illumination. Without processing the presence of external visible wavelength electromagnetism and objects reflecting it can not be seen.

It would probably be good for clarity in physics to refer to un-received light as (visible) EM and the visual sensation, the observation, as light. I used to reliably refer to external visible EM as 'EM' or 'em' but light is used by physicists in general parlance and so I have become less pedantic. However there is a significant difference. Visible EM in the external environment (Object reality) is not the sensation of light (Image reality). So I should acknowledge their belonging to different categories of reality by using the different names.

Steve re.your "However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense." I refer you to the below post, if you are looking at most recent first order- Anonymous replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT addressed to Eckard and Pentcho which may possibly be of interest to you.

James Putnam

Hi Georgina,

In response to your inclusion of "all", while not wanting to interfere with the ongoing conversation, but, rather to place myself, for the record, in disagreement with "The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality)." Length contraction is a physical effect that occurs with the same result regardless of whether the object is moving away from or toward the observer. This is both what the Lorentz transform predicts and what I have found, while not relying upon relativity theory, to be correct. In any case, you are presenting your ideas very well and I recognize they have received positive response from others here. Good luck.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Hi James,

it is good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind words of appreciation.

The specific question I asked was: does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? By object itself I am referring to the substantial source of the manifestations seen by observers. That is the nourishing steak, made of atoms, using Professor Feynman's example. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

May I ask, what is it you consider is transformed in reality rather than mathematically IE what is the equivalent phenomenon in physics? Some choices for what is transformed 1.The substantial object, such as " Feynman's Steak" (that is the source of the sensory data received by an observer) 2. the potential sensory data in the environment 3. the relationship of the observer to potential sensory data in the environment 4. the seen output of the sensory data processing.

I would choose 3 which leads to 4. 3. is how a transformation physically occurs, a different viewpoint obtaining a different selection of potential sensory data and 4. is the outcome of the transformation. What is seen in both reference frames is manifestations, IE the outputs of sensory data processing as substantial source objects can not be directly seen, or so it seems to me, you may still wish to disagree.

I may have been wrong to equate Galilean relativity with the Object reality of things but it seems that at normal speeds and local distances there is little difference between where something is and where it is seen to be because the speed if light is so fast. However that is ignoring optical effects.

Since relativity and optics deal with the emission or reflection of light and how it is received and output of that, why aren't the two branches of physics combined, giving a complete depiction of relativity. The various relations of observers to potential sensory data in the environment and the outputs obtained, varying in "TEMPORAL ORIGIN" and in SCALE and GEOMETRY. For example there is the physical equivalent of foreshortening, used by artists to represent what is seen. The dimensions of an object's manifestation being shorter along the line of sight relative to across the line of sight Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeingand And clearly the more distant an object( the source) the smaller it ( the manifestation) appears to be.

Georgina Woodward

Sorry -Anonymous replied on May. 18, 2015 @ 06:21 GMT, that was me, Georgina, I seem to be unable to stay logged in long enough to write a reply.

James Putnam

Georgina,

It was your second statement I responded to because it is unrelated to your question:

"As we are receiving light emitted or reflected from objects, does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality)."

The answer to your question is No. That answer is unrelated to length contraction.

Length contraction occurs to objects such as the pole in the barn pole example. The pole shrinks in the direction of its velocity. That shrinkage occurs in the Lorentzian manner and not linearly. That shrinkage also is not dependent upon the position of an observer. The barn pole example is not a example of special relativity. The reason is because the barn is not in free space, but rather is stationary on the surface of a planet. There is no paradox because the barn is not moving relative to the surface of the planet.

The effect called 'length contraction', in the example, is unrelated to and unchanged if the observer is given a velocity relative to the surface of the planet. Doppler effects are not examples of length contraction. Doppler effects are dependent upon the direction of relative velocity, with respect to the pole, of the observer. The length contraction of the pole is independent of the direction of that velocity. It is independent of the observer's velocity, either with respect to the pole or the barn, regardless of the observer's direction or speed.

Here is an example of the a consequence of length contraction due to velocity relative to the surface of the planet. There is a wire with a constant current in it. The wire is stationary on the surface of the planet. The wire has the same number of negative charges as it does positive charges. It is electrically neutral. The electrons moving in the wire have a velocity with respect to the wire and to the surface of the planet. Because the electrons have this relative velocity, they experience length contraction. The wire does not and the observer does not and the planet does not, in this example, experience length contraction. Relativists can predict the existence of a magnetic field around the wire by a calculation that begins with length contraction. The magnetic field exerts a well defined force, based upon changes of velocity of a test particle having electric charge. That force is not the same as electric force. It is very different.

I find relativity theory to be obviously wrong. For this reason I have deliberately and repeatedly mentioned velocities with respect to the surface of the planet because those are what really matter for real effects in the barn pole example. In the case of the magnetic field example I do find that the magnetic field varies its strength due to a length contraction. My explanation is different from relativity theory. However, it doesn't matter because you are offering to explain the effects that are attributed to relativity theory. I mentioned that length contraction is independent of the direction of relative velocity. The effect known as time dilation is also independent of the direction of the relative velocity. In other words, it makes no change in the effects known as length contraction and time dilation whether an object is moving away from or toward an observer. The effects are the same in both cases.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

Hi James,

Yes I agree the answer is no. In which case any alteration of the "thing " observed, is alteration of the manifestation, the output of the sensory data processing. By my reasoning, but you have a different observer independent ? understanding of the paradox.

As I understand it, the barn pole problem is about non simultaneity of events for different observer reference frames. Try this simple presentation.

The barn pole paradox :Non simultaneity illustrated with colour changes © Mark L. Irons

Quote" The hidden assumption in the apparent paradox is that when we envision "the pole", we imagine an actual pole. In our daily existence poles don't change from moment to moment, so our mental model of a pole is of something uniform, something always the same at every moment for all observers. Once we recognize and break that assumption, it becomes easier to comprehend how observers in different frames can disagree about an object's appearance." © Mark L. Irons, last updated 10 August 2007 I find this presentation easy to understand and have linked to it several times on this site. I'm not sure why you say "I find relativity theory to be obviously wrong." The above presentation does not appear obviously wrong to me but enlightening: )

As I see it each colour relates to a different time or iteration in the sequence of configurations of the Object universe; because the pole illustrated is going through a regular sequential colour change. The manifestations produced by each observer are constructed of data from different "temporal"origins ( Object universe configuration origins,IE different CO-data).The manifestations differ in colours and length. The same applies to both pole and barn. Changing from one observer perspective to the other does not alter the source object at all but alters the manifestation observed.

James forgive me for not addressing your reply directly. I know you dislike reading feedback containing half baked attempts to understand your work. There is a lot in there and I will have to think carefully about what you have said. Kind regards, Georgina

James Putnam

Georgina,

"I know you dislike reading feedback containing half baked attempts to understand your work."

No, I never had a problem with that.

"Yes I agree the answer is no. In which case any alteration of the "thing " observed, is alteration of the manifestation, the output of the sensory data processing. By my reasoning, but you have a different observer independent ? understanding of the paradox."

I may not understand your point. There can be alterations to either the pole or the barn that exist before reflected light leaves and is affected otherwise.

Relativity theory is wrong for many reasons that I have debated a long time mostly with Tom. So, I'll just stick with responding to the idea that: "...the barn pole problem is about non-simultaneity of events for different observer reference frames." I can offer an explanation for why relativists have not solved their paradox. Lets first see if I describe the problem satisfactorily:

There is a pole with a velocity aimed directly into a barn. The pole, when it is stationary with respect to the barn is too long to fit into the barn. The Lorentz transform for length-contraction predicts that when the pole has a sufficient magnitude of velocity, it shrinks enough to fit inside the barn as it passes through. There is a paradox that exists due to relativity theory allowing for the relative velocity of the pole to be applied in reverse for the barn. In that case it is the barn that shrinks instead of the pole. Relativity theory allows for them to both be true for the same event. As you pointed out, non-simultaneity is credited with explaining that the pole will both fit into the barn and not fit into the barn depending on which of the two has the relative velocity. Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away. Usually observers are included and their perspectives on what is occurring are given. For example, if the barn is said to have entrance and exit doors that will be closed simultaneously for an instant while the pole is in the barn, if it fits, there is offered the opposite perspective of one observer, traveling with the pole, who sees the doors not operating simultaneously. The observer perspectives are offered as proof that the two predictions of the Lorentz transform for length-contraction are both correct about what happens physically to the pole and the barn for the same single event.

My own description of the problem includes the barn being stationary on the surface of the Earth. I am not including that for this discussion. Please let me know your opinion of the description given above. Thank you.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

OK James. I just don't want to upset you by having you think I'm misrepresenting your work by feeding back my misunderstandings.

James I think you have set out the paradox OK. However a few things to bear in mind. The Lorentz transformation that predicts the pole will fit is from the perspective of "Barney" at the barn only, not "Polly" with the pole. Its to do with reference frame not just speed. For "Polly" at the pole the barn appears to be moving and the pole stationary giving the appearance of shrinking of barn instead. From that reference frame but not the other, Barney's.

You wrote"Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away." If that is the case there is a paradox because a substantial Object can not be simultaneously short and long BUT from two different observer perspective the manifestations of the object can be different without paradox. Regarding the doors, there is no agreement about simultaneity from the two different reference frames. Barn pole © Mark L. Irons

Happy to hear your alternative explanation of the paradox as you have set it out.

Georgina Woodward

I have in many posts pointed out that we never see substantial objects themselves. Always emergent reality outputs of EM data processing. The analogy can be given of a building observed by a near observer and a far observer; Each sees it as having a different height to the other. The substantial Object itself in Object reality does not change size at all how ever the observers look at it. Each observer receives a sub set of EM data from which their manifestation is fabricated and in this (house) case of varying size the visual angle gives the size of the object on the retina and consequently the image presented to the visual cortex.There is a widespread problem of not differentiating substantial objects made of atoms,and the emergent Image reality manifestation of an object. All are called by the name of the object. Swapping of observer perspective is not a problem as shown by the house size analogy above. Different observers see different things depending upon their relation to the substantial object ( that affects which sensory data is received to form the manifestation of the object that is seen.) As another analogy consider the perceived length of a pole like object seen head on and same pole seen from its side held horizontally in front of the observer standing midway between the ends. IMHO the paradox comes only from not differentiating object from emergent image. Non simultaneity of perceived events can account for both different perceived sizes of the objects (Images) and different reckoning of the opening and closing of the doors.

James Putnam

Georgina,

"OK James. I just don't want to upset you by having you think I'm misrepresenting your work by feeding back my misunderstandings"

I have never been upset by you or anyone else by feedback to me about my work. Do you want to color our past disagreement in your favor or do you want to discuss the barn-pole problem? I am interested in discussing only the barn-pole problem. Here is one more attempt at discussion.

"James I think you have set out the paradox OK. However a few things to bear in mind. The Lorentz transformation that predicts the pole will fit is from the perspective of "Barney" at the barn only, not "Polly" with the pole. Its to do with reference frame not just speed. For "Polly" at the pole the barn appears to be moving and the pole stationary giving the appearance of shrinking of barn instead. From that reference frame but not the other, Barney's."

The pole and the barn are sufficient for the problem to be resolved. Perspective is fine for discussion between observers, but observers are neither necessary nor functional in the barn-pole paradoxical problem. There is no need for a Barney nor a Polly for the purpose of learning about what happens mechanically. Relativists do have a need for a Barney or Polly for diversionary purposes. Is it your position that what a Barney or Polly sees or thinks they see affects the mechanical outcome of the pole-barn paradox? We need to agree what the problem is, otherwise any solution is irrelevant. My position is that there is a pole with an approaching velocity relative to a stationary barn. The question to be answered is: Is there a velocity at which the pole approaches that is sufficient, when substituted into the Lorentz transform equation for length-contraction, to allow an otherwise 'too-long' pole to fit within the length of the barn?

Yes there is a paradox for relativists and the relativists' proposed solution fails.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

James, ?: ) My intention was only to state up front that I don't intend to cause offense to you in this discussion and I feel hesitant to address your work for that reason. No ulterior motive or offense intended by my comments : )

You ask "Is it your position that what a Barney or Polly sees or thinks they see affects the mechanical outcome of the pole-barn paradox?" As I said a substantial object can not be simultaneously short and long BUT from two different observer perspectives the manifestations of the object that are seen can be different without paradox. I'm not sure what you mean by mechanical outcome of the paradox. The outcome is what it is said to be in the description of the paradox. If you mean what is happening to the pole object and barn object IE substantial objects made of atoms, then observer reference frame is not affecting those objects. Just like a substantial object house is not affected by an observer viewing it from a distance.

You haven't quoted me quoting you which makes it look like, according to you, I wrote what you wrote.For the record it was you who wrote Quote "Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away."

From what you have written it seems to me that 1. you do not consider the problem to be about observer reference frames; 2. do not accept that the non simultaneity of events that would be experienced by observers at each position is sufficient to describe what is occurring; 3.do not accept that the paradox is resolved if related to what is seen rather than substantial objects (my viewpoint) as you do not consider it to be about appearances. I don't agree with you but am happy to hear your resolution of the problem.I don't understand how the Lorentz transformation applies if not switching between different reference frames.Or will we be?

James Putnam

Georgina,

The problem I have interest in addressing is the problem of the pole-barn paradox and its solution as relativists understand it and solve it. There has to be agreement on the problem. Perhaps there are others who can present the problem as relativists understand it and solve it.

James Putnam

John Cox

James,

If I may briefly interject, here...

While I address SR as the mechanics (mathematic mechanism) of measurement, there always exists the psychology of any individual encountering pondering what it says about reality. Much confusion arises, I think, from Eienstein's famous euphemism of riding on a beam of light and 'time stops'. uhhhh.... no. I mean if 'time' stops at light velocity, how can light continue to propagate at light velocity across space where time stops for no man? Here-in lies all the paradoxical psychologisms that plague modern relativity.

Let us dissect the Einsteinian euphemism. Starting with the old joke that the 'speed of time' is one second per second. Okay (...?). So if that is the universal rate, how do we know if it is that rate we ourselves experience? We don't. What is 'one second'? For looking closer we distinguish that for the Einsteinian euphemism to hold, it means that we track the change in rate of passage of time in relation to our velocity from the human experience of how much effort it takes to push a stone up the eternal hill, starting from rest and ever increasing our speed as we go higher up the hill. In short the euphemism rates the speed of times passage as 1 sec/sec @ rest; up to 0 sec/sec @ light velocity.

Where I find your 'A New Gamma' applicably interesting, is in looking at the Lorentzian in the reverse. That is, from light velocity dropping to ~relative rest. Mass is only a 'mass of energy' (energy en-masse) until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits inertia as a function of density in universal proportion to the total rest quantity. So gravitationally, the rate of passage of time would be 0 sec/sec at ~rest; and progress Lorentz fashion to 1 sec/sec @ light velocity. In a rest mass of particulate matter, the greatest density would exist in a core volume at constant density because time would not extend in relation to the space of that core volume, but as the distance increased from the core horizon, the density would decrease as a coeffeciency of greater space and increase of the rate of passage of time without the energy quantity extending spatially to infinity, but only to a limit minimum density where the rate of passage of time is 1 sec/sec.

Looking at it from that paradigm, SR makes better sense. At rest we measure mass, but at light velocity we measure energy. Taken literally, energy is mass existing at light velocity. And if density is a function of inherent velocity, a small enough quantity of mass does become accelerated to light velocity as EM because it ceases to be 'mass' as velocity transforms it to enegy, without the necessity theoretically to extend spatially in all directions to infinity. Hence, light is a unidirectional physical volumetric phenomenon. If I decide to produce a paper, I may well incorporate your extrapolation of (c)sqrt 1-(v^2.c^2) and cite your 'A New Gamma'. Thanks, but don't hold your breath. jrc

John Cox

OOOPS, oh drat! Sorry James, I should have done a final proof-read, I had hit the period key instead of the slash. Your extrapolation of (c)sqrt 1-(v^2/c^2) jrc

Georgina Woodward

Hi John, excuse me commenting on your post to James, I mean it to be helpful and not disparaging. You wrote- "Much confusion arises, I think, from Eienstein's famous euphemism of riding on a beam of light and 'time stops'. uhhhh.... no. I mean if 'time' stops at light velocity, how can light continue to propagate at light velocity across space where time stops for no man? Here-in lies all the paradoxical psychologisms that plague modern relativity."

If an event (A) is encoded in a set of EM data that is propagating at light speed and the man travels with it at light speed, he is keeping pace with the encoded event (A) It is not being superseded by younger, more recent EM data that would up date the man's present experience. It is his experience of a changing present that stops. Despite this there is still passage of time external to his experience, the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe, which includes change in position of EM sensory data.

There is a presumption in this thought experiment that I think is probably a flaw, the assumption that he cannot simultaneously keep pace with the light beam and receive EM from elsewhere, that would give him changing present experience. EM being waves can pass through each other, the light beam is not like a solid object that would exclude others from that space.

You wrote "Let us dissect the Einsteinian euphemism. Starting with the old joke that the 'speed of time' is one second per second. Okay (...?). So if that is the universal rate, how do we know if it is that rate we ourselves experience? We don't." I have recently linked an FQXi talk by David Eagleman, What is time to the brain... (See below the link seems to activate when the post is expanded) He provides evidence that human experience is an another level of emergent reality beyond mere amalgamation of sensory inputs according to time of arrival. There being additional delays and synchronization of sensory data from different senses giving causal 'story' consistency.Mentioned because you asked" how do we know if it is that rate we ourselves experience? " The experience of passage of time is variable for a human observer.

John Cox

Georgina.

As you say, (at light velocity) "It is his perception of a changing present that stops." That is, his perception of the passage of time in the stationary frame through which he is passing. Though time keeps ticking right along in his experience as an energy entity, because he has become a gigantic strand of photons. If we remove ourselves from the equation and look at the existential reality in terms of Albert's Euphemism, if time stops at light velocity then mustn't time move at light velocity for a relative rest quantity? SR is mathematically complete as a measurement scheme, but here it is the time metric that I take issue with. For the hypothetical observer to continue to experience the passage of time while moving at light velocity, as consistent with the postulates, while perceiving time as static in the (K) stationary reference frame; light velocity is that experimentally measured absolute value because that must be a fast as time can extend. Therefore, Einstein's Euphemism was an ambiguity uttered in the excitement of the Eureka moment, and stuck.

Encoding data or not. The metric rate at which time extends relative to the velocity of a real physical particle would be 0 sec/sec @ ~rest, and 1 sec/sec @ c. What paradox? jrc

Georgina Woodward

Hi John, some thoughts on what you wrote from my own point of view.

It's said to be impossible to accelerate a body to the speed of light because of the problem of increasing inertia. I don't know that the light beam rider becomes a stream of photons in the scenario of riding a light beam. Imagining he can be accelerated to that speed, he can also be imagined as still being a corporeal observer, accustomed to his high velocity. In that state he should still be able to intercept EM already emitted from objects far ahead, traveling at the speed of light, that crosses the path of his light beam. Though the EM sensory data he is travelling with is remaining the same only diminishing in intensity with distance.

I think you are right in a way- the updating of the sensory data from which the present of an observer at rest is fabricated will be happening at light speed. That is to say the rate of photon data arriving is the speed of light but there has to be processing time added to that to get to the rate at which the present that is experienced is intermittently updated. Which is very much slower. See David Eagleman's FQXi talk.

When you talk of time in relation to a real physical particle you are now no longer talking about the perception of time, time within the emergent reality of the observer, but passage of time in external substantial reality. These are different categories of time. Particles themselves do not experience a present, the emergent Image reality, they just always are at uni-temporal -Now what ever speed they are travelling. (uni-temporal-Now is the temporal analogue of the existing (youngest)configuration of the Object universe)

John Cox

Georgina,

Have I said congratulations yet, Ms. Parry? Best wishes.

But yes... "talk of time in relation to a real physical particle you are now no longer talking about the perception of time, time within the emergent reality of the observer, but passage of time in the external substantial reality."

That is physics prior to the *information age* which I recognize has its own validity in examining the roles of information as we devise its criteria, and the vast investments in information theory due to the global addiction to ever increasing computational capacity at no increase in cost. And which despite the rosey promises of the Quants that by the time 5G hits the shelves they'll have given us 'quantum computers', I doubt. After the collapse of the functional financial wave in 2008 leaving the too big to fail boys uncertain about their principal, I don't think the Saudi's are banking on it. They want to sell as much oil as they can, while they still can. My small investment strategy concurs.

Though differing in our perspectives, I think we both agree that Einstein's famous gedanken is indeed flawed, but its curious because Einstein then immediately introduces as postulates the conclusions of Maxwell's results; the universal constancy of light velocity, and that the laws of physics are identical in any frame of reference. Which of course includes the passage of time in the light velocity frame, and which in the hard physics of his day treats the role of humanity in the observer role as a given. SR is simple geometry and a little algebra, NOT simple arithmetic.

Maxwell's silver hammer came down on Newton's head, Einstein just used it to put the last nail in his coffin. You have to do some digging to get an understanding of Maxwell beyond the tired homage that his equations 'give a complete understanding of Electromagnetism', which is only true enough. But Maxwell's electrodynamic theory upon which Einstein founded all his work, is not itself a complete theory. Like GR, Maxwell's equations produce a mathematical singularity which cannot exist as a physical reality or all the intensity would be concentrated at a zero dimensional point and there would be no volume of field to observe. That is why QM hangs onto the *zero-point particle* and evolves to non-locality, superposition, entanglement and etc. since it took the quantum leap of faith.

Many like to argue against Relativity by contesting the validity of the postulates because Einstein doesn't lay out the theoretical and mathematical proofs for them. But Maxwell had already done so (in spades) , and Einstein cites Maxwell's theory. To argue against the postulates of SR, one must disprove Maxwell and offer a consistent, full theoretical treatment that explains all of the technology higher than Volta's chemical cell. That's physics.

Which brings me back to my point to James. Einstein's ride gedanken has the time metric backward's. Not that it doesn't grab people's attention and illustrate that given Maxwell's never-disproven conclusions, it is time and space that are not absolute. But so does the metric of 0 sec/sec @ ~rest >> 1 sec/sec @ c, and that metric dispels the psychological paradox and might well be taken as the fifth dimension which Klein and Kaluza hypothesized but failed to provide a theoretical rationale for its existence. I don't have the math to explain it, but in the Klein-Kaluza 5D application to GR, Maxwell's equations emerge. KOOL!

Please forgive me for not engaging in the layered perceptual-informational arena, I'm an old guy on short time and quite frankly miss the world before ninetendo. Best wishes, jrc

Georgina Woodward

Hi John,

with respect, re. time for the particle itself, You wrote "That is physics prior to the *information age* " No it is modern physics, which requires foundational passage of time due to change in configuration of the Object universe underlying the perception of passage of time via information input.

I don't see why you say the time metric is backward. If we have a sensor at rest receiving a bombardment photon data that is travelling at c that will give an output passage of time. The image of a nearby clock produced from the photon data detected by the sensor would show marking time as you put it at one second per second. Instead of considering the man travelling with a photon stream how about if we consider the photon stream alone to be encoding the time on a clock. The data is unchanging, it is not being updated and so the time encoded does not change." Clock time apparently stands still". That's two different photon streams; one with changing data content and one without changing content; one showing passage of time and one not.

Yet for a traveler at relative light speed (relative to an observer deemed to be rest )time passes normally. He gets hungry, he gets bored, etc. because physiologically there is still change occurring. Worth mentioning I think, his velocity is only relative to something deemed to be at rest.It could be something moving away from him at high speed and so his absolute velocity is much less than c. Photons travelling within the apparent rest frame of the high velocity traveler behave just like any other photons and would be measured to be travelling at the speed of light. Perhaps it needs to be accepted that the speed of light is always the speed measured by the local observer; and THAT speed can not exceed the speed of light. A far observer would not be able to measure the speed of those particular photons themselves, because he is not there but far away.

[deleted]

Hi James,

please forgive my intrusion. I wasn't expecting my comment to John to turn in to a another discussion, though I appreciate the replies. It would be very good if you and John discuss your work because you two seem to be 'on the same wavelength'. The by standers might learn a thing or two.

It would also be enlightening for me to actually hear you explain the outcome of the barn-pole paradox in your own words. I don't think you need someone to argue with about it in order to set it out as an alternative explanation. So far you have set out the problem as you see it for me, I'm OK with what you wrote( I set out my own thoughts on that but they are incidental). You say you have already has discussion with Tom, so do you really need another strict relativist to try to convince? Couldn't you just explain it and leave it for other people to ponder? If you do that other people, pro or anti, may wish to join the discussion and discuss it with you. (Meant only as an encouraging, helpful suggestion.)

Georgina Woodward

Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 00:22 GMT, that's me Georgina

Georgina Woodward

John, All,

Just to clarify, I wrote, "That's two different photon streams; one with changing data content and one without changing content; one showing passage of time and one not." The important difference is what the observer is doing relative to the EM data as the observer's motion determines whether the data content is changing relative to him or not. Being at rest relative to his surroundings receiving data traveling at c relative to him (changing data and corresponding experienced passage of time) OR traveling with the EM data at c that is consequently unchanging in that reference frame.(No experience of passage of time from that data.) Time can be seen to be passing differently depending on reference frame because that kind of time is emergent from the data content of the EM received.

While light beam traveler and stationary observer are not becoming separated in foundational, uni-temporal time because of their motion and consequently different EM data receipt. They both always stay within the configuration of the Object universe that exists, not one in the future relative to the other because he has seen time passing faster.

Akinbo Ojo

John Cox, Georgina, James et al.

- Concerning Maxwell and the equations purportedly endorsed by him and besring his name you may wish to read and store for keeps 90 year old Thomas Erwin Phipps's essay this year before it is removed. I think it clarifies more than a bit.

- Concerning travelling at light speed, you may want to consider the 'photon existence paradox' discovered by Armin Nikkah Shirazi with whom I had some discussions on his forum also in this years essay contest. If time does not flow for a photon or if 'time' stops at light velocity as John puts it, then the time of emission of a photon is the time also of its absorption, how then can photon exist?

It follows therefore that since photon exists, time does not stop for photons contrary to the Lorentz formula

t' = t в€љ(1 - v2/c2)

where for a photon t is the time it reads on its own clock and t' is the time the photon reads on an observer's clock. But for both photon and observer, photon must have a duration of existence, if not we are led into contradiction. Light would not be observed to reach us from the Sun if it is from observer viewpoint, and Light would not be able to leave the Sun from photon perspective.

Akinbo

John Cox

Akinbo,

Thanks for bringing Tom Phipp's essay to my attention, I had only browsed a few entries meaning no disrespect for anyone. I'll have to give some thought and study to it, but have also limited my focus to loose ends and unresolved issues in classical physics which evolve into the morass of modernity.

I have also always objected to the standard application of LT producing the scenario you concisely illustrate that if time 'stops' at light velocity the time of emission and absorption of a photon (wavelength, really) would be the same. Which is what I mean by the time metric being backwards. Time does not stop at light velocity, the closer you get to light velocity the closer you are to the limit of how fast time can progress. But, enough if this for me, for now. Cordially, jrc

Georgina Woodward

Akinbo, All

Akinbo you make a good point regarding the existence of a photon when "time stops". I will address that issue.

The problem here is lack of differentiation of different kinds of time.

There needs to be at least 4 kinds acknowledged and differentiated in physics, though there are more kinds of time if we include different representations of time such as time that only exists mathematically, internal biologically time, as kept by circadian rhythms adjusted by light exposure times: important for biological organisms, and "Father time" that only exists symbolically and mentally.

The kinds of time important for physics are:

1. time in foundational Object reality, that is passage of time synonymous with the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe. OR.configuration time. Any highly regular sequential change with unchanging accuracy of repetition can be use to represent this such as clock time but only very close to the position of a stationary observer, to avoid significant data transmission and processing delay and affects of motion upon the timekeeping of the clock. This can be likened to "Proper time".

2. time information carried by potential sensory EM data primarily (but also other forms of sensory data ) in Object reality, OR. data time.

3. The time as experienced by an organism or displayed by a processing device. Which is Image reality time. It may be helpful to split that time into outputs that retain the data receipt order and those that do not necessarily.

That's a Basic IR. time and a subjective IR. time.

Now as regards the "stopped" photon. That it is stopped is the relative perception of the observer travelling with it. Yes from that perspective the photon ceases to have a frequency or wavelength because the observer is travelling with the wave keeping pace with it. But the photons in the beam are not themselves changed. There is no Basic IR. or subjective IR.Passage of time that can be formed from the photons in that reference frame.So in that respect there is no time. However the photon beam is still carrying OR. data time that could give Basic or subjective IR. time output to observer's crossed by it's path not travelling with it. Also there is still the foundational OR. configuration time: Object universal passage of time in which these scenarios are happening, that is independent of relative perceptions and data transmission.

That time is both stopped and not stopped is only paradoxical if no differentiation between kinds of time is made.

James Putnam

Georgina,

I should begin at the beginning with removing the indefinable mass from f=ma. It involves the speed of light directly. However, I have found that physicists have lost an understanding of their own definition of an indefinable property. They can no longer see what their predecessors wrote clearly about in physics texts. The wording in texts has changed so students no longer learn about it. So, even though the Lorentz transforms are not the beginning of the problem with theoretical physics, they do show their own error sufficiently, at least it seems clear to me.

Take the Lorentz transform for length contraction as an example since it is a principle part of the pole barn paradox. It definitely is a paradox as it currently is explained by physicists. They say that both perspectives are equal and correct for a single event. The point I will be making is that the two perspectives are not equal and cannot both be correct for the same single event. Here is the reason: Taken from a single perspective, the transform is said to be from the viewpoint of an observer who has no assigned velocity. A second observer is said to have a velocity relative to the first observer. The effects predicted by the Lorentz transforms occur to the second observer and not to the stationary observer. It is only when the observers' roles are reversed and the transform is applied again that it is predicted that the relativity type effects switch from the second observer to the first observer. Here is where I raise objection. I argue that the roles are not reversible. This point has to do with crediting the physical environment with causing the effects and not the stationary observer's gaze. The physical circumstances are determined by electric permittivity and magnetic permeability and not because the stationary observer is watching. ...

I'll pause here. Tomorrow I will review what I wrote thus far, respond to criticisms, and resume. Jumping ahead a little, I can provide the explanations for what are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Those explanations follow from removing the indefinable status of mass, the same for temperature, and removing the circular definition for electric charge.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to the curving of the EM data paths within a gravitational field and the Doppler effect. If substantial atomic clocks themselves are running slow when in motion as shown by a permanent change in time shown compared to a relatively stationary clock it is necessary to separately categorize clock time, for moving clocks.

Georgina Woodward

Thank you James.

I look forward to your next installment.( I too think the environment is vital to the outcome, as it contains the sensory data from which the observer outputs are formed.) Though by bringing up electric permitivity and magnetic permeability I feel you are going to raise physical constraints that I have not contemplated. I think we could come back to the definitions after you show us how those factors are contributing to the scenario. (To keep it simple.) Unless there is someone else here who would like to look at that first.

James Putnam

Georgina,

I mentioned electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in order to emphasize that the background conditions are what determine the speed of light. Those two properties are what what Maxwell used to establish the speed of light demonstrating that light is electromagnetism. So I followed convention and mentioned them to support the point I wanted to make. When I derived replacement equations for Maxwell's equations I learned what those two properties are. I know they have already been presented in one of my contest essays. They are not the cause of the speed of light. They are results that occur from the cause of the speed of light. The cause of the speed of light is the first property I identify in my work. It goes back to defining mass. However, I didn't start this communication all the way back there, so I referred to electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in the conventional sense as the two properties that determine the speed of light within any particular environment. In any case, the point is that it can conventionally be said that the speed of light for any observer is determined by the background environment in which they are located. The stationary observer referred to when applying the Lorentz transforms establishes the background environment for themselves and the second observer who is assigned the relative velocity through that background environment. Their velocity through the background environment is what results in their length contraction and the other relativity type of effects. The transform equations cannot be applied in reverse for that same event. An observer cannot both have a velocity with respect to the background environment and simultaneously be stationary in that background environment. This last point raises the question of the role of simultaneity. I see that subject being discussed as if it is settled. So, I will address the use of simultaneity in relativity solutions for problems like the barn pole paradox. It occurs to me to say at this point that I have not yet given my own understanding resulting from my work about why the effects identified as length contraction and time dilation occur. My understanding is not the relativity theory understanding. But, one can't say everything at once, so I temporarily rely upon some conventional understandings.

James Putnam

Georgina,

In the barn pole paradox there are two perspectives presented using the Lorentz transforms. One is that of an observer with the pole and the other is that of the observer with the barn. (I know you know these things, but, I must lay my bricks. Besides, there may be other readers.) From either perspective, the complete forms of the Lorentz transforms predict length contraction for either the pole or the barn and time dilation for both of those plus it differentiates between the beginning of of the pole, or the barn, and the end of the pole, or the barn. Time dilation is different for the two ends. My point is not to debate those results of applying the Lorentz transforms to the pole barn paradox. My intention is to move on to one more step require by relativity theory in order to resolve the paradox from its point of view. That extra step is to introduce simultaneity.

The Lorentz transforms are applied from each observers perspective. The results are contradictory, giving rise to the existence of the paradox. Up to this point, the velocities that have thus far been acknowledged to exist are credited with causing the results. However, the paradox cannot be permitted to persist or relativity's correctness for predictions must be denied. The solution is to introduce speed of light dependent observations to show that the observer's see things occurring differently. Without showing any physical source of cause, relativists claim to achieve physical results. Physical results are those that either change the forms of objects or cause their velocities to change (local changes to the atoms involved). It is a case of relativists arguing that appearances are equivalent to actualities. In other words, to see it different proves that it is different.

Now I reconsider the role of simultaneity from my own viewpoint. The introduction of simultaneity introduces additional changes of time into the paradox. My point is that, for the purpose of generating physical results to the objects involved, viewpoints don't matter but, physical causes do matter. Simultaneity doesn't show its physical cause for its claimed physical results. In order for time to change further than what had been previously predicted by the Lorentz transforms, another velocity must be introduced. There is no new additional velocity. Without the relativists showing it to exist the paradox remains. What is left is the claim that what one sees occurring is what really is occurring. I leave this now for your consideration. I will mention that although we have opposing viewpoints, I recognize that yours is more consistent than is that of the relativists.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

Hi James thank you once again.

Could you please explain to me why the introduction of [relativity of] simultaneity requires in your opinion further changes to time in the problem? I think the coloured pole illustration nicely illustrates the passage of time that will have been captured within the EM sensory data during the scenario and the relationship of the observers to it. Aren't they seeing different events as simultaneous because of their particular reference frames( And the sensory that they encounter within)?

I agree that there is no physical cause to alter the dimension of the [substantial] objects themselves,( if we discount friction warming the pole and causing expansion). They are seeing the objects differently and making assumptions about the source objects based upon what is seen. In my opinion that is what is happening - relative perception, different emergent Image realities being produced within the same foundational Object reality. In which case there is no paradox. Is there another solution James? Or is it enough that the paradox as initially conceived, differences in susbstantial objects themselves, can not physically occur? -that is why it has been a paradox, is it not?.

James Putnam

Georgina,

Lets take your first point for this message: "Could you please explain to me why the introduction of [relativity of] simultaneity requires in your opinion further changes to time in the problem?"

A version of the pole barn paradox includes having an entrance door and an exit door for the barn. They are said to open and close simultaneously for the observer with the barn. They are unnecessary for the purpose of answering the question: Will the pole, due to sufficient relative velocity, fit inside the barn? It will fit or it won't fit because of its length and not because doors open and close. However, the doors are necessary for simultaneity. The idea is that the approaching pole observer will receive light from the two doors at different times which is, of course, true. If the observer is at the midpoint of inside the barn, it is argued that that observer will see the exit door operate at a different, earlier, time than the entrance door. It is this claim that for the pole observer, the doors are observed to not operate simultaneously, that introduces an additional variation of times that did not exist in the problem when only the Lorentz transforms were predicting results. The simultaneity argument is added on ad-hoc with no explained cause for real physical results, to atoms if that makes matters clear. The relativists are mixing actual local physical changes to objects with perceived changes to objects. That is why I commented that your view is more consistent than is theirs. My own view requires that changes be physically real if the problem is to remain a physics problem. My interest is in a physics solution. My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

Hi James,

agreed the doors are an unnecessary addition but they are added to help illustrate the non simultaneity of the two views.

I'm am glad you think my resolution of the paradox is an improvement. It is consistent with the explanatory framework I have developed. I consider my resolution to be a physics solution. The potential sensory data consists of EM radiation that is within the environment, that is as real as the substantial objects made of atoms also within the environment.

You wrote" My own view requires that changes be physically real if the problem is to remain a physics problem. My interest is in a physics solution. My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox." Do you have a physics "related to atoms" solution to the paradox or are you just refuting relativity James?

James Putnam

Georgina,

I took my time to think about this:

"I think the coloured pole illustration nicely illustrates the passage of time that will have been captured within the EM sensory data during the scenario and the relationship of the observers to it. Aren't they seeing different events as simultaneous because of their particular reference frames( And the sensory that they encounter within)?"

The space-time idea is something I wonder how it survives. It can't be physically real. There is no empirical evidence for it. However, it does survive and there are illustrations offered that apparently make it seem real. With regard to the quote above and thinking about your description of the colored pole illustration, I think that you analysis of it is correct.

James Putnam

Georgina,

Quoting me: "My conclusion is that the correct physics solution is to admit that the paradox exists and relativists cannot physically, again to atoms if that makes this clearer, resolve the paradox."

You: "Do you have a physics "related to atoms" solution to the paradox or are you just refuting relativity James?"

The paradox exists. It cannot be resolved. Even if both the pole and the barn were located in space the paradox would continue to exist. If the barn is said to be stationary with regard to the combined effects of all the rest of the matter in the universe, then the pole has a relative velocity with respect to that background. Space has values of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, meaning that the background of space determines the speed of light and that that speed is not affected by the gaze of either observer.

The controlling background description leads to a result that contradicts predictions of special relativity. If there are two observers with a relative velocity between them, special relativity predicts that they will each observe the other as experiencing length contraction and time dilation while they themselves remain unchanged. Speaking about time dilation in particular: It is predicted that they will each see the others clock running slower. Now have them both moving horizontally near the surface of the Earth, and give them both the same magnitude but opposite in direction velocities relative to the Earth with the Earth's environment serving as the background. They would have relative velocities with respect to each other of twice that magnitude. Now getting to the point: Applying the Lorentz transform for time dilation from each of their perspectives, the prediction is that they would see the other's clock running slower. Alternatively, taking into consideration that it is their velocities with respect to the background that causes relativity type of effects, the result is that they would both experience equivalent time dilation effects. They would see the other's clock running at the same rate as does their own.

Add a third observer, with a third clock, standing stationary on the Earth. Both of the two observers in motion would see the stationary clock running equally faster than their clocks. (I reluctantly use the physics name for the effect known as time dilation but only to describe what happens to clocks or rates of activity in general)

With regard to your question about whether I have a solution to the barn pole paradox, the answer is no. The paradox is a relativity paradox that in my opinion remains unsolved by relativity theory. Without the relativity viewpoint, there is no paradox. If the barn is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the moving pole could fit inside the barn. I don't solve the paradox, but I can explain why the pole undergoes real length contraction. I might have difficulty trying to explain my reasoning in messages because the explanation goes back to the beginning of my work when I remove the indefinable status of mass and give a definition for it. I will think about it though.

With regard to evidence for the existence of length contraction, I have offered evidence here before. It is commonly observed evidence that physicists do not know about. They are well aware of the evidence but have an alternative explanation for it dating back to when Bolztmann introduced the kinetic theory of gases. I don't know if I want to repeat it again here. It was ignored without response. It is given at my website and maybe that is the best place for it to remain. Perhaps if there was genuine interest from professionals, it would be worth the effort to explain it. I would have to first convincingly refute their alternative explanation.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

Hi James,

thank you very much for thinking about what I wrote concerning the coloured pole illustration. Your feedback that you think I am considering it in a correct way is much appreciated. I think the concept of space-time as a persisting external reality has been an error. I did read, in a book called "E = Einstein" by Donald Goldsmith and Marcia Bartusiak (Editors), that Einstein and Godel had many discussions regarding the conundrum of time, and whether space-time should be regarded as external reality or "mind space" was something Einstein thought about - coming to the conclusion that it is external reality. The actual answer, as I see it, isn't so black and white. Certainly the EM sensory data that encodes events(that can be decoded by the recipient )exists and persists within the external environment. Not as events themselves involving substantial objects or that could be revisited but as fluctuation in frequencies and intensities of photon streams emitted or reflected from objects in the environment. Yet the space-time output is only generated when the sensory data is received and processed by organism or device. The EM data has to exist somewhere and to overcome the Grandfather type paradoxes (and not needing a substantial past as a part of the explanatory model) a uni-temporal foundational universe suffices.

[deleted]

James,

from your second post I understand that in your opinion if [Einstein's] relativity is rejected the paradox becomes an irrelevance. And yet relativity can't be entirely discounted as it is apparent in everyday life.

It would still be interesting to hear why you think the pole will shrink to fit the barn. If you don't wish to explain could you just link to your web site again to make it really easy for other's to visit?

Georgina Woodward

Anonymous replied on May. 26, 2015 @ 00:02 GMT, that was me, Georgina

Kind regards.

James Putnam

Georgina,

Ok. :) Lets see if I can give a productive answer in a single message:

All objects vary in size all the time. The reason this occurs is because the speed of light varies everywhere at all times. The control for the speed of light is mass. The matter of the universe is all in motion. Their combined effects form the background control unless one approaches close to an individual body of matter. It is light that binds particles together and atoms together and molecules together, etc. Light is quantized and quantized light varies in length. Bodies of matter vary as the light that binds them varies. When the speed of light slows, the quantized light shortens. When an object moves through the controlling background, its local speed of light slows. Its local speed of light is its mass. Mass in f=ma is the inverse representation of the acceleration of light in-so-far as that body of matter affects the speed of light.

In one of my contest essays, I put forward a very simple model representing a quantum of light. I described it as being like a very short piece of wire. The introductory mathematics of that model is analogous to that of a right triangle. The essay that I posted introducing a New Gamma makes use of right triangle math because that new gamma results from that simple model of a piece of wire. I don't assume that this short description is convincing by itself. That is why it usually doesn't seem like a useful practice to give short answers. What I will say is that all of the results that I have presented in my contest essays for years are all derived as part of a fundamentally unified theory that uses only changes in the speed and direction of light as its cause for all effects. Those effects include gravity and electromagnetism. The properties that reappear most often throughout the derivation process are those of the hydrogen atom. The most useful single quantity that binds it all together is the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. It appears everywhere as the term delta tc. The second most useful term is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom delta xc. That length is also the length of the wire model of a photon of light. That length varies and is the root cause of length contraction. My website is newphysicstheory.com.

James Putnam

Georgina Woodward

James thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to set that out, I also appreciate what you gave said about it being part of a self consistent body of work. Looks like I have some reading to do : )

« Previous Page Next Page »