Georgina,
Okay, I see what you're saying, which in physics as in photography (even pre-digital!) is a given, if you take the classical paradigm. In QM not so, it does and doesn't exist anywhere and everywhere in superposition except at the source and the focal point, if and only if there is an observation made. But rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, I'll wait for the mathematicians to jump in. :-) jrc
But John QM is about states and not objects. All states that the object could be observed in are within the sensory data within the environment, where and how you look together with what is there gives you what you find,(State of Image at focal point.) The source object does not have a singular state in the way that an emergent manifestation does.So disagreeing with you, the Source object is in a superposition of states, which is more obvious for some objects than others. Though the observer can not see them all simultaneously as we see manifestations, Images not substantial objects. A manifestation is formed from a limited subset of data and is only what it is seen to be unlike the object that is the source of everything it could be found to be. It's not true that macroscopic objects have definite fixed states, images of macroscopic objects do.Cups are concave and simultaneously convex, a globe spins clockwise and simultaneously anticlockwise, which state is seen to exist depends upon the relationship of the observer to the sensory data scattered from the objects.
I'm afraid the idea of the space-time continuum makes people think that the visible universe is substantially real when it is a fabrication from received data. What happens to that data prior to receipt affects what we perceive to be there. For me this new research highlights the emergent nature of the visible universe. Taking into account perturbation by the plasma tubes could be like "a new pair of glasses" but does not alter the fact that what results is still a fabricated emergent reality and not what exists -Now out in space.
JRC, Georgina,
May I ask what may be two stupid questions:
1. Are these plasma tubes matter?
2. Are these plasma tubes earth-bound as the earth moves about the Sun and galactically OR are new plasma tubes formed at each location the earth finds itself in its motion?
Regards,
Akinbo
Pls apology for any unintended stupidity.
Georgina,
After several reads of your previous post I agree that on some points we are in disagreement and on others not so much. We do have entirely different vocabularies which is difficult for me. Case in point; "For me this new research highlights the emergent nature of the visible universe". That is a bit confusing to me because as you state it, it has the logical form of a common rhetorical fallacy, that of substitution. Simply because the plasma tubes are not *visible*. Ms. Loi's achievement was to make their predicted existence visible through the use and utilization of proven detector arrays that produce an electrical response that is intentionally modulated to produce an already contrived artificial system of data. Only then is it *data*. And to call what is made visual by technology and designed logic circuits *emergent*, is to endow the procedure of discovery with the attributes of the discovered.
The visible spectrum is only called visible because that octave is processed by our physiology to create a perception of visibility. It's 'just as dark as the rest of it' (jrc).
You are importing a terminology that comes from the mass marketing of untruths in advertising which promotes the misconception that it is *information* which has a physical reality that *crosses* (?!) an electronic junction, and all that geekspeak is a deliberate contrivance by corporate interests with warehouses full of behavioral science majors whom get gross reward for trivializing the language and selling next years must have new gadget! Why not learn the conventions of definition of terms used by physicists? ;( jrc
John, the visible universe is the OUTPUT of data receipt and processing not the invisible potential data in the environment. I agree that fluctuations within the environment are not in themselves data. I usually use the term potential sensory data when referring to signals that subsequently lead to manifestations.When talking about the visible universe in that last post as was referring to the dust clouds etc that Ms. Loi mentioned and how we may have to reconsider their forms.
I am using the term emergent as an adjective, which can apply to coming into being or coming to notice. Both are applicable.I don't think I am endowing any further connotation by use of that word. Image realities -come into being, and are noticed- they do not exist prior to that coming into being.
Yes I agree with you about the visible portion of the spectrum just being EM radiation but it is the processing that allows vision. The visible universe is not just output from the visible range of the spectrum but all frequencies made visible via technology. The visible universe as output of data processing is distinct from the Object universe that is the substantial objects existing -Now in external reality.
Your final paragraph has me baffled. I have tried hard to be precise in what I say and have adapted my language according to the feedback I have received to improve it where necessary. I think perhaps you disliked my use of the term super position.I only used it to try to illustrate the overlap of what is happening at different scales. Re. the spinning globe , prior to the observer reference frame being applied all that can be said of the globe in isolation is that it is spinning. It is the relationship between observer and lets say the object (even though it is really a relationship with the EM radiation in this example) that gives the identified state. So the clockwise or anticlockwise states are equally applicable prior to one orientation of observation being applied. That observer reference frame together with what is in the environment gives a fixed state, emergent manifestation, an Image reality. The manifestation only has the state that is seen. Perhaps I should just say the state of an object is indeterminate prior to Image reality production. The state is not a property of the substantial object in isolation.
Georgina,
After posting I checked a couple times and realized I had sounded ambiguously contemptuous. My apologies, I am contemptuous of the decades of tech promotion which treats Max Born's baby as the physical reality. And it's done for the same reason they put a cheap prize in each box of Cracker Jack, people need something of a real and physical durable good to feel justified on spending money on self gratification. Because durable goods are the only true form of wealth. If *information* were treated as the intangible that it is, there would have been no NASDAC tech bubble, and half the gadgetry sold. The hype and invention of clever new words denigrate the advances made in productivity and scientific discovery aided by computers.
I have recognized that you are approaching hard physics from a highly evolved epistemology that grapples with the puzzle of how it can be that we have perception as we experience it, emerging from a purely existential physical dynamic, and how we can qualify what is or is not a definite element of that physical reality. Your own criteria has an IFF (if and only if) constraint that may or may not be correspondent to other such IFF's such as in complex (math) analysis. But I'm not the one who could or should sort out a concordance of correlation in cross disciplines, that be your turf.
There have been great strides made in recent times in neuroscience and brain sciences, and human sentient consciousness has at long last come into its own as an intense interest in physiological and theoretical research. But its in its infancy. I don't go there much these days, instead began long ago reading the fundamentals and history of physics from an experimentalist cum theoretical curiosity. And you have progressed rapidly into more conventional modes of description.
Patience with me please, I'm an old dog now. But way back when Desmond Morris' 'Naked Ape' was on the coffee tables of polite company as a topical prelude to social intercourse, and on the top of paperback stacks of the off-campus collegiates as a social prelude to sexual intercourse, I was delving into and struggling through the post-doctoral theoretical work in anthropological clinical psychology of Dr. Julian Jaynes 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind'. So hang in there, baby. And as Tom Ray has said in essence, the profusion of insignificant papers produced by the publish or perish gift economy of academia swamps the few achievements of real enduring merit. We all would hope to have at least one original thought, and pursue it to some new fundamental understanding. On! through the fog! jrc
Akinbo,
Sorry for the lag time.
No. 1: Yes, ions are matter.
No. 2: Yes, the ions cluster in the tubular structures which are embedded in the atmosphere, which itself is within the electrical domain of the ionosphere. And they are a product of atmospheric molecules having their valence bonds broken by high energy particle collisions and electromagnetic radiation, in a continual flux of molecular breakage and isotope ionization along with recombinant reactions. It's a cotillion waltz, in high fashion.
The interesting feature, apart from the electrical disturbance to signal traffic whether broadcast or naturally occurring EMR detection from cosmic or any extraterrestrial source, is that they differentiate along magnetic field force lines. But how any such force *line* becomes distinct and evolves as the earth rotates like Newton's Bucket stirring the aggregate molten iron rich core and less viscous regions with other elemental constituents having high magnetic moment, is not only so extraordinarily complex as to be approachable only by probabilities in large numbers, but also begs the question of whether there is a boundary at all between any assumed line of force.
I'd like to get some direction towards literature on the research Cleo Loi worked from. How 'bout you? jrc
Hi John, Akinbo,
John thank you for your replies, I do appreciate you having taken the time. I am glad I have clarified what I have been doing but am also sorry for sidetracking this discussion spot. Thanks for the questions Akinbo.
There is a paper published in Geophysical research letters " Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere":25 May 2015 but that doesn't seem to be freely accessible. So to see the reference list someone would need access to that Journal. I think to find out the background might take a bit of searching. I have just come across " An Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Magnetohydrodynamics" By Marcel Goossens, which talks about magnetic flux tubes in chapter 4 but how enlightening regarding this new work I don't know.
Hi JRC,
Actually I cannot claim any expertise on plasma physics and may not be the best person to point to the more useful literature. I see Georgina has identified one. My interest lies mainly in the fundamentals. What exactly is a line of force? Is it a stream of particles, a sign that space can be active or a linear substance? How do ions interact at a distance without being in direct contact? I have my opinion on the matter but this may not be relevant to the topic.
Akinbo
Georgina and Akinbo,
Thanks for the references, Georigina, I had perused the British Geo link and it goes to the Q vs. C question of:
Akinbo,
Good question if you are in for the long haul, because QM and Classical clash over what a field of any sort might be. I'll address the classical.
If we hypothesize a single material particle exhibiting a field which operates continuously from an electrical conductivity through a magnetic domain, both of which characteristic phenomenon each operate with a polarity in equal and opposite measure, and embedded in a unidirectional gravitational domain, all of those characteristic effects operating in accord with inverse square law; we might conclude as Faraday did that our hypothesis resolves from that full volume of field being a physical extension of the particle in a real material sense. That is the Unified Field famously sought by Einstein and many others.
Given that hypothesis, there is no physical boundary between the intensity at any chosen point in the field and a greater or lesser intensity at another chosen point. It changes as a smooth variation in a continuous physical function. So a line of force is very much like an isobar on the weather map, it is a continuous line of demarcation of a chosen measured value of intensity of whichever characteristic force effect is being plotted. But that can only be theoretical due to our limitations on experimental verification. We can not at the present, isolate and measure a single material particle.
In aggregate, the classical paradigm still lacks a rationale and conceptual rendering of how those distinct characteristic force effects can meld together and expand into a volume of an inertial frame envelope producing the ionosphere and magnetosphere and gravitational domain, while remaining discretely interactive with free particles and EMR. On the short haul, that is such a load that it was dropped in favor of the ad hoc, dice & slice methodology of Quantum Mechanics.
So in the whole earth catalog of aggregate effects, we might say that a magnetic line of force is an isobar of aggregate effect intensity as arbitrarily measured, and that spikes of intensity variation are anomalies of concentrations of particulate matter having a range of high magnetic moment inherent to a variety of isotopes.
I hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much, but its the best of my understanding in brief. jrc
Georgina,
I know a woman whom all called 'Georgi' since high school, and her husband was an acquaintance also. Both are unpretentious, self-reliant, hard working and conscientious. Back then there was a Pop song 'Georgi Girl' that was light, lively and encouraging of young women to become all that they were capable being and wanting. So If I slip and address you in a presumed familiarity, treat it as a form of endearment.
My thanks for the references are in an aside to Akinbo, but beyond that as to your criteria which I noted has an IFF quality to it, and as might be relevant to your ponderings of SR; complex analysis is called *complex* because it employs imaginary (only by definition in mathspeak) numbers but can be applied to your illustration of the observer dependence in relation to the aspect of the cup. I prefer 'illustration' to analogy because correctly an analogy means a 1 to 1 correspondence, an analog. Here goes;
Say you cut an orange in half, three times at mutual right angles. Now you have 8 equal segments of a sphere. Stuck back together, if you want to measure from one octant into another octant, you have to correlate the point in each octant to its respective x,y,z axes. But there is nothing upside-down and backwards to the temporal spatial relationship between those two points like you would find if the line of sight went through a lens at midpoint. So the non-commutative algebra of Quaternions was devised to say if you designate your start of measure in octant 'A' then in the other octant what would be displaced from the x axis is transformed to a displacement off one of the others depending on which direction you rotate your measurement scheme, and if its in an octant that your scheme designates as in the opposite hemisphere, then it operates as a negative (imaginary number) and that prescribed axis that would otherwise be x is now z but = 'i'. Yeah, I know. There's got to be a better way. Especially if your proportion of measurement is a quotient because while you can multiply by zero and only need 4 transforms, you can't divide by zero and so need 8 transforms known as Octonions or 'division rings'. But! it's okay! because all you have to do is pick your intial point and that sets which ring, or 4x4 matrix chart, you use throughout all computations. Those axis transforms correlate to an * if and only if * criteria from the initial point of observation.
But so do your definitions of qualitative designated reality. Light intersecting light suffers no interference and doesn't slow it down, but the refractive index of a medium through which it may or may not pass, does. What emerges from your criteria is (at first blush) consistent with the physics of 'just because we don't observe the light bouncing off it due to our distance or position, doesn't mean it's not physically part of the visible universe'.
Glass is silicon and is transparent to light, but the spark plug wires in your car are actually not wire at all, but long strands of silicon insulated by spongy silicon. And so opague that the high voltage electromagnetic pulse carried by the strand is shielded sufficiently by the molecular arrangement in the insulation sheath that in all likelihood the low millivoltage from the engine control computer that operates the 'step' motor of the idle air control valve is carried in a wiring harness that rubs up against the distributor or plug wires. IFF. :-) jrc
Dear John,
rest assured I am not offended by any variants of my name.I have just chosen to use my given name as it was given.
You have given me lots to think about. Describing an unobserved object is a bit tricky because the description involves imposing coordinates. As you mentioned using quaternions there is this and that hemisphere whereas the unseen object itself is entirely indeterminate. An observer is required to designate front and back. (A manifestation of it can be seen from the observer designated front and the unseen back is not part of the manifestation.) Right now I'd like to dig a mathematical hole and throw the substantial object in orientation undecided. That obviously needs more thought : )
With regard to Image reality it really is emergent. The substantial source objects are in the environment and EM radiation emitted or scattered from the objects is in the environment but the images really aren't until they are produced. Taking the very simple example of a single lens producing an image at its focal point. The image comes into being when the EM radiation is re-collected from its dispursed condition. It isn't that there are multiple images of the source object in the environment, there is only the potential for them to be formed. Which image is formed depends upon where the lens is situated in regard to the EM potential sensory data and hence also the source objects.
Image realities being emergent can be regarded as a different facet of reality to Source objects and EM potential sensory data. They are not a part of the foundational (Object) reality but having been fabricated must still be within that foundational reality while being distinct from it. The image formed on the retina of an observers eye and then mapped to the visual cortex and then perceived is not the external reality. It is distinct from the source objects in the external environment having been fabricated from a limited sub set of potential sensory data that may have taken different lengths of time to arrive.
Acknowledging the role of that emergent reality gives a new perspective on Relativity and how time can (appear to) pass differently for different observers etc.
I have taken a look at IFF logic. I certainly can write some if-then statements but I will need to spend a bit more time thinking about the two way logic and how it applies. I think the (sometimes)being in foundational reality while not being the foundational reality is an interesting new kind of logical, ?mathematical structure.
Georgina,
Believe it or not, I have been able somewhat to follow your argument of substantial versus emergent reality and your perspective of Relativity(s). And it bears reminding oneself that Einstein himself felt saddled with the term and reiterated that what was relative, was simultaneity. His argument was that the Newtonian concept in Descartes orthogonal co-ordinate system, of a shoebox filled with identical cubical child's alphabet blocks representing absolute space and time, did not necessarily follow from simultaneity. Rather it is the (any) observer whom with the mathematics of the SR measurement methodology, whom could pinpoint two events at separation, as being simultaneous regardless of whether the event in block A was at a point in A's inertial domain where the rate of time was the same as at the point of the event in the Z block.
Too much emphasis on the 'revolutionary idea', is given this single element of *Relativity* that all relativistic thought has become attributed to him. And the whole scope of intellectual movement of his era has become largely ignored. And that itself has hindered the advance of classical, continuous causality in the quest for a complete theoretical rationale to explain how individual particle field domains in aggregate, meld together into and expanded volume of an inertial, self-limiting gravitational domain within which magentic, electrical and ballistic response all behave identically independent of scale.
As Akinbo asked; What is a magnetic line of force.
It is an isobar of arbitrarily chosen, measured intensity of magnetism which can be plotted as a graphical line. At the scale of a background independent, theoretical free rest mass material particle, the plot would be expected to be spherically symmetrical and no physical boundary would exist between any such arbitrarily chosen line. That intensity can be easily argued to be a functional property of the rate at which time progresses as has been experimentally corroborated, and intensity variation thus being a difference in rate of time.
In that hypothetical context, is true reality, the Universe in Newton's shoebox?
Breaktime for this Bozo, jrc :-)
Hi John,
it would be really helpful for me if you could explain why you have said that you have followed my arguments "somewhat". What is it that makes it difficult or problematic? Is it perhaps that I use a number of words interchangeably for the foundational reality, foundational, substantial, Object and likewise the emergent reality, emergent, fabricated, Image? Or is it something else I have not made clear? By the way thanks for mentioning IFF logic, it is something I am going to look into some more.
There is non simultaneity of events because of how the different observers are receiving the potential sensory data, from which their present experiences are fabricated. It is non simultaneity of the emergent Image realities occurring within uni-temporal( wholly simultaneous ) Object reality. This two level structure of reality allows non simultaneity of experience but simultaneity at the foundational level of object and particle interactions. That can be imagined as a singular causality front, the where and when new arrangements come into being, rather than events occurring that are scattered in time. I have not been arguing against any method of transforming one observer perspective to another. If the mathematics works, and it seems from what I have read that most think it does, then it doesn't need fixing. Unlike the paradoxes, which indicate something is very wrong with the model but are made intuitive and non paradoxical or irrelevant/non applicable with the explanatory framework I have developed.
Re. What you have explained to Akinbo. The different intensities being different times seems strange to me. I haven't come across this before but if what you say is correct it can only apply to an Image reality. In reply to your question no the shoe box concept alone is inadequate but it would possibly be consistent with two 'level' reality, which could be put into the shoe box- if you really wanted that. I've only said possibly because this is unfamiliar and so I have some skepticism about the different times explanation, the theory that is.
Georgina,
Please excuse me for a couple days before I reply. It takes me a bit of time always to sort out how others express their ideas, and while your two level approach is similar to the way arguments in SR are laid out, coming from the postulate of Constant Light Velocity (or often: CSL), the choice of words you use is unfamiliar to common usage in conventional physics. Here let me add that unconventional ideas while abundant are not necessarily crank, but are best presented in the conventions of meaning of terms. And, yes, where you find it necessary to express a new idea (I've had several myself which I found were only so to me) by a different usage than conventionally, or coin a new word or phrase, by all means stick with just one term and only elaborate on it where context might not seem instructive enough. (That's my mother, the Managing Editor, speaking.)
Let's talk of time later. There's no end of it. ;-) jrc
John ,
thank you very much for taking time to consider what I have written. I haven't previously been made aware of the lack of sufficient conventional formality in what I write. I have it seems possibly been mistaken in thinking that I have been communicating effectively. It sounds like plain English to me but I have been saying these kinds of things for years and perhaps am so accustomed I am oblivious to their obscurity and ambiguity. I have tended to use several different descriptive terms for the different facets of reality hoping that the alternatives will help clarify what is meant by the different Object reality and Image realities; and each new reader is unfamiliar with what they are/are not. Using the kind of formal logic you have pointed to may be a way of overcoming some of the obscurity and ambiguity, and so I will try working with that. There are a couple of diagrams at the end of my essay that I entered this year, which may or may not be helpful in ascertaining my intended meanings. I look forward to your feedback.
Georgina,
Just briefly because I have mundane matters to attend, and which I find helpful because focusing my attention on things that don't take much, keeps me from interfering with what's sorting itself out in my head.
Since the quantum revolution began there has been an explosion of exotic theorizing, which makes pinning down conventional terminology pretty tough, and it does pay to refresh on the fundamentals of pre-relativistic classical mechanics. It was very much, mechanical. And that makes it very attractive to some because of its intuitive simplicity. Yet at the origin of both divergent branches in modern physics are the conclusive results of Newtonian physics, as well as the unanswered questions which still haven't been addressed. And those include; what is real as to what emerges as an appearance of reality.
I see text I'm typing by virtue of light emitted from the screen of my laptop, but I don't see the keyboard itself, just the light bouncing off it. :-) jrc
Hi John,
Briefly so as not to distract. We don't see substantial objects themselves or the EM radiation (potential sensory data) itself. They are parts of Object reality. Unless you have a very shiny keyboard that leads to production of an image of light bouncing off of it, I would say you are not seeing light bouncing off of it. Instead you are seeing the image of a keyboard produced from the processing of the received EM radiation. That image is an emergent Image reality. It would not exist were it not for the receipt and processing of the EM radiation. Close your eyes and it, the image, does not exist. In contrast to the unseen substantial object keyboard that exists whether it is perceived or not. That being part of the foundational Object reality, not emergent from EM radiation processing. This scenario is comparable to the simple single lens system mentioned previously. The Source object is the substantial keyboard and the image at the focal point is an emergent Image reality keyboard. We do not see objects we see images of them, that could be described as limited fixed state manifestations.
Hi John, All,
I have learnt a new physics word. "Collimated" A convex lens will collimate the uncollimated light, which is then focused. Which is what I should have said rather than the light is re-collected by the lens. It is essentially straightening all of the light paths which are somewhat divergent due to the scattering of the light, and then focusing them. Without collimation and focusing there is no real image, it does not exist; but the potential to be formed is within the environment, that I am calling, in that regard, the electromagnetic data pool.
The image emerges when the processing of the EM is carried out by the lens. Hence the (real) image reality is emergent from the receipt and processing of the EM radiation. Since the human visual system is also reliant upon convex lenses the (real) images produced on the retinas and mapped to the visual cortex are also emergent, as is the output perceived. Making all of the observed present, what is seen, or output from a device such as a camera, emergent reality. Distinct from the external reality of Source objects and environment replete with electromagnetic potential sensory data.
That it is an emergent reality output of processing and not present in the external environment is significant and different from the idea that events and objects themselves are spread within a space-time continuum. (It overcomes the Grandfather paradox). The differentiation of Object (substantial )reality from Image (emergent)reality is pertinent to physics especially the understanding of time, Relativity and physics built upon it.
Just a slight correction of terminology. Collimated light has rays parallel and carries what is called a virtual image. Focussed light takes collimated light and creates a real image from the virtual one.
Remember that there are two surfaces for each lens and eyeglass lenses are usually both convex and concave, for example. Some lenses will focus light while all lenses affect the collimation of a virtual image.
Note that the virtual image of collimated light can also be captured as a hologram, with the phase as well as the amplitude of the collimated light. The image is still encoded, but now has to be read with another laser source.
Note also that photon lengths depend on the lifetime of the emitter and can easily be many tens of nanoseconds, which means that photons can be tens of feet at a foot per nanosecond for light. In other words, a single photon can actually physically connect us to a near object for some instant of time. During that instant, there would not really be a separate reality and emitter, photon, and absorber would be a dynamical superposition of events, not separate events.