Wrinkles in Spacetime

Tom (et al),

Concerning; "For example, loss of visibility due to a proper time lag..." IF an experimental protocol could be so devised as to tell the difference. After all its already ambiguous as to what is meant by 'a photon', and the most recent researches I've read of ( at Maryland, if I recall correctly) have confidence of counting down to a level of about four photons. It seems ambitious, but worth trying. But are we dealing with a particle form or a waveform, and would it matter? And is light subject to entropy, or is it light because it is non-entropic?

But let's speculate some success, and a loss of visibility is attributable to gravitational effect. That would firstly corroborate Minkowski from the QM side, which taking the paradigm of absolute time would cast blocktime as a picture where 'everything happens at the same time'. So too, 'many spaces' would also be 'many times'; which I don't see as very different from Bohr holding that one thing can occupy more than one space at the same time. Just stated differently. Extending that to gravitational lensing, a proper time lag would also suggest that Olber's paradox is not so paradoxical. The light is 'there' in our space, just out of time sync. Perhaps the ticket to accounting for all that dark energy? It would open a can of worms, me thinks. Is cosmological inflation the reality or an illusion cast by a vast gravitational time warp? Was Hoyle half right? I'd like to think more real estate is still being made. Heretcally, jrc

I have spent considerable time trying to understand nature. Some of intricacies of nature as they became known to me, created the fascination. One of the earliest one was - conservation of Energy, the next was special theory of relativity, the third was exploding universe. The complexity of nature grew more as I progressed though my education as carrier as engineer. But now, I consider myself to be Pico-Physicist. TO say more, In Pico-Physics, the wrinkles are result of presence of matter in space. Some corollary of Pico physics state, that if we compare a star which is hiding behind lot of matter in space and another with line of clear space between start and observer, the one with matter clusters will appear to recede faster.

We have lot of data now, may be some day, I my inquisitiveness will be satisfied.

Pico-Physics agree with your analysis. But it arrives at Conclusion "space to be 3-D" from a different logic. This logic is based on Unary law of Pico Physics "Space Contains Energy". Multi-dimensional space can be seen as a mathematical formulation to understand problems, but not a reality of nature.

I would like to draw your attention to a chapter in Pico-Physics - Observation & Observer, picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer.

I believe with your approach to understanding reality, we may have much in common.

I had problem understanding the concept of Zero & infinity. It took me a long time, to understand the numbers by theself are just symbols, when associated with a unit they represent reality. They come to exist when associated with a unit. From this understanding evolved Infinte Maths, which I use to establish - Three dimensions of space and integrate whole lot of isolated divergent branches of physical sciences into UNary Law - "Space Conatins Energy".

You may like to visit /picophysics.org/concepts/pico-mathematics/ or just download vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/infinite-maths7.pdfAttachment #1: infinite-maths7.pdf

It depends on what we mean by time. Time is one of the most difficult concept to put into logic and understand it on that basis. It took me many years to get to understand time. This understanding led to stating a unary law "Space Contains Energy" as the sole fact of nature. This law integrates time in exclusion of all other properties from basic postulates of unary law, and defining Energy as an identity that is Konserved and Space that is not. Exclusion of all other properties to definition od these two identities, and delegation of all other fundamental laws of physics as corollaries of this law helps understand time as an observed reality.

The thought process thus evolved into what is now termed as Pico-Physics.

Quantum Gravity - If we mean some thing like quantized radiations, Pico-Physics Negates this. To a Pico-Physicists gravitation is result of interaction of Space & Energy as per Unary Law "Space Contains Energy". The essential loop contemporary science is in on gravitation is due to basic understanding about potential energy (postulated to preserve law of conservation of energy) being misplaced. Refraction and Gravitation are two aspects of this interaction Space with Energy.

Dear Tom,

i too wish you all the best for your health condition and that you continue to contribute to the fqxi community. We are all driven by curiosity about the fundamentals of existence and it was always a pleasure for me to exchange point of views with you.

Best wishes

Stefan

That experiment is quite ingenious.

"Hence in standard interferometry [e.g., (5)], a difference in height between two paths merely affects their relative phase, shifting their interference pattern without degrading its visibility. General relativity, by contrast, predicts that a clock must 'tick' slower along the lower path; thus if the paths of a clock through an interferometer have different heights, a time differential between the paths will yield 'which path' information and degrade the visibility of the interference pattern"

The result could demolish or strengthen the 'probability demons" in QM

Regards,

Akinbo

Hello all,

Tom,thanks also :)hope that Lawrence will post.

Regards

Reality is visible infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality has nothing to do with invisible finite black holes, invisible finite atoms, invisible finite quantum particles, or invisible finite strings of energy. Please stop wasting your time with codswallop theories about the invisible.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Stefan,

Thanks. Ditto to you. :-)

Einsteinians (other than Sabine Hossenfelder) reject special relativity

[link:www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/]"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity.[/link] It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - 
A, then B, then C - someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way - C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

"A conscientious cosmologist rejects Einstein's notion that time is an illusion and the future is set. (...) In 1905, Einstein overturned Newton's harmonious picture of a standard universal time. He replaced it with a discordant, relative view in which different people could disagree about the duration of events, and even the order in which they happened. The young Einstein came to the remarkable realization that time was, in fact, a fourth dimension, alongside the three dimensions of space that we see around us, creating what has become known as the "block universe" picture of reality. (...) [George] Ellis respected Einstein's mathematical ingenuity, but he later balked at the philosophical implications of the block universe, in which the future stands on the same footing as the past."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Velev,

Although Einstein foolishly insisted that a finite amount of invisible energy was exactly equal to a finite amount of invisible mass multiplied by a finite beam of invisible light multiplied by its finite invisible self, this has absolutely nothing to do with observable reality. Only infinite surface is observable because it is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe

from the point of view of history of science you are not a realist (that traditionally believes in the existence of a reality, that is independent of our perception - nowadays consisting of atoms etc.), but a positivist like Mach. The problem with this view, where you take only your sense data as real, is that one ends very fast into a kind of solipsism. And it is difficult to see a way, how general valid concepts can be developed - concepts, that are independent of our human perception.

However I would take this critic not as prove of impossibility, but as a challenge: How can we develop general concepts from what is knowable about nature. I believe modern developments in operational quantum mechanics are very promising.

Another challenge - somehow connected to the above - is your unique reality. Uniqueness cannot be named. Only things or events that are repeated can be named or recognized. However most of us believe in the uniqueness of the now, the universe - of the reality. Where does this come from? Couldn't that be a projection of our perception of the uniqueness of our self? How could we think reality as something not unique?

However Steve is right: you are repeating yourself. But you're not alone with that in these blogs!

And last but not least. Are you able to imagine a surface, that is not embedded in a 3 dimensional space? Respect if you can.

Best regards

Luca

Hi Mr Valeri and Mr Fisher,

I agree Mr Valeri.Godel d have said that we must accept our known universe and the unknown universe .We are sofar of the singularities and the entire uniqueness principle.We appraoch all days but we are far of all the universal laws.Regards

Paul Davies (2003): "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Is the "Great Revolution in Science" still around the corner? Yes it is. For the moment Einsteinians reject the consequence, spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. However the gullible world is not infinitely gullible and will soon realize that when the "immediate consequence" is wrong and should be "retired", the underlying premise cannot be true:

"Baumgarte began by discussing special relativity, which Einstein developed, 10 years earlier, in 1905, while he was employed as a patent officer in Bern, Switzerland. Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho Valev,

In order for only infinite real surface to be visible, it must be illuminated by real light. Therefore, real light cannot have a real surface. We can see the real surface of real objects moving and it is only surface that moves at the same constant speed. As real surface is infinite, no part of it can be finitely measured. The surface of a fly hovering close to a person's eyeball is immense. As it flies away, it gets quite smaller until it flies out of view. Einstein's proposed formula for calculating the magnitude of invisible space/time is utterly preposterous.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve Agnew,

"You mention objects and you mention activity and so you do seem to believe in objects and activity since you use those words. Since there is no meaning to the word activity without time, it is not clear to me why you keep repeating that there are no time-like measurements."

Physics empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the case that time is passing during changes of velocities. It is also the case that space is traversed during changes of velocities. So, velocities change with respect to either time or space. However, neither time nor space are accessible to us so that we may make measurements upon them. They cannot serve as standards of measurement. So, we substitute measures of object activity in their places. That is our only choice because we only observe object activity. With regard to the property of time in particular, it is not what the 't' in physics equations represents. Nor do symbols for length or distance represent the property of space. The 't' represents cycles of a specific object activity. Clocks measure the number of those cycles, or cycles of their own, that have occurred during a measurement of object activity. Physicists choose to speak and write using the word 'time' for 't', and compound words that include 'time' such as space-time or time-like. Theoretical physics introduces substitutes (educated guesses) to fill in for that which is unknown. Even with these theoretical intrusions present, the equations remain useful because they are designed to accurately model the patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It is the patterns that usually provide useful extrapolations and interpolations. What the equations cannot do is fix the empirically unsound guesses that theorists have injected into physics equations. A major effect of such theoretical guessing is the introduction of fundamental disunity into physics equations. That problem began with the decision to make mass an indefinable property. Theoretical physics is stuck with disunity that cannot be undone by the introduction of additional invented, and empirically unverifiable, 'properties'.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2016 @ 14:03 GMT as "...I repeat the point made similarly earlier: There is no empirical evidence for interpreting object activity as representing either time or space. We have no experimental data for effects upon either time or space. The only empirically justified conclusion about the nature of space is that it consists of room for objects to move about in. Both space and time are fundamental indefinable properties. In other words, they cannot be explained. Only in the empirically unsound interpretations of theorists do speculative imaginings become 'science-like'..."

Time is an unexplained given; 'time' measurements and 'time' delays are misnomers for duration measurements and duration delays. Duration being counts of cyclic activity of objects that are not time. Time is not like objects and objects are not like time.

"I do actually agree that time is an axiom and so time is like activity which is like time, which is an identity. ..."

We do not know what time is like. We do know it is not like activity. Activity is objects changing their velocities. There is no empirical evidence for time having a velocity let alone a change of velocity. What is a physics fact is that time is a fundamental indefinable property.

"However, a second way to define a fundamental axiom is with the other two axioms of matter and action. Since action (or activity in your words) is the integral of matter in time, time is the differential of action with matter. This is the trimal nature of a closed universe."

Matter is an imagined mechanical substrate credited with being the source of observed properties. Those properties being defined by and represented by their units in physics equations. Matter has no units and is not represented in physics equations. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of matter. The choice of the idea of the existence of matter is a philosophical preference. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We do not know what cause is.

The mathematical term for 'action' does not include measured time. Time is not measurable. Measurements take time to occur but the unit of second is not a measurement of time. A measurement of time would involve the differences between two points of time. We have no way of accessing points of time. With regard to action being the product of either energy and 'time' or momentum and length: What is the physical meaning of 'action'? Its usefulness is not in question. Specifically: Why are its units Newtonsxmetersxseconds? Those units convey all of its meaning, and its purpose in physics equations.

"Color is a measurable property of an object. Color change is a measurable property of an object that is time like. Change is what happens to objects with different time delays. These are very common measurements of objects no matter what kind of stuff you use to make those objects."

It is not the measurements that are in question. The measurements give us the empirical information that we need in order to know what effects have occurred. It is the non-empirically supported practice of assigning, by means of employing inaccurate wording, additional effects that did not occur. For example, there is no evidence that time gets delayed. There is evidence that object activity gets delayed.

James Putnam