Essay Abstract

Scientific curiosity as a human strategy for survival includes the intention to cope with discrepancies between mutually excluding views. Common sense distinguishes past cause from future effect and a point in between while dynamic laws of nature are shift-invariant. Why? The laws are formulated in terms of an unlimited to both sides time that lost its reference to reality. Models that are based on that notion require an arbitrarily chosen reference instead. Necessarily they are redundant and suffer from being closed systems. This affects any belonging method, even alternative ones like least action, path integrals, and BEM. In contrast, my essay admits reality to be an open system seamlessly including everything from elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond. Reality is not fully predictable because there are unseen external influences or just too many internal combinations the mix of which is considered responsible for its progressing evolution. My essay suggests taking under scrutiny some gaps in mathematics, physics, and ethics. Non-arbitrary reasoning is my goal as well as my key criterion, a logical underpinning of Ockham's razor.

Author Bio

See http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/topic/369

Download Essay PDF File

Dr. Blumschein:

Your essay has really thought provoking points. I am seeking to learn.

Your discussion on the "arrow of time" seems to only observation rather than a derivation from some universe principle. Is the "arrow of time" a universe Principle (it should be a derivation I think)? Did I miss something?

Concepts of singularities and infinity are unreal physically, yes? Therefore, are physics answers of a singularity or infinity from false models? If a transform (map) of a measurement has a singularity or infinity, is the model false although it may be useful in some realm? Your example of 1/r in the gravitational force mapping equation is such a condition.

Your discussion of the Hamiltonian broached a subject with which I've been uncomfortable. Perhaps the coordinate system that allows a 0 or negative potential should be disallowed in physics. Or, the calculating scheme should focus on inertia and gravitational mass - always positive. Perhaps the Equivalence Principle is not a principle but should be derived from a more fundamental principle (I've suggested the Emergence Principle.).

I agree improved ethics and morals to deal with the realities of a technology culture are needed. Humanity must impose nature's (God's) decisions on itself else nature will cause the collapse of society. It has done this in the past, several times. The unskilled worker or welfare recipient have the highest birth rate. The poorer living conditions in the past had nature dealing with this by higher disease rates and society dealt with this by draconian means. Perhaps the humanitarianism of today's morals is wrong. We are in a warm period that produces more food than a cool period. Societies tend to increase population when more food is available. When the cool period comes, the society starves and collapses. The Chinese approach doesn't work. Although population is reduced, the people that can help are restricted.

Thanks for your essay and your insights.

Hodge

    Dear Mr. Blumschein

    Your essay is a retrospective of all important in science been achieved until nowadays. It is written with the understanding, correctly and clear. So that's my assessment, brilliant. However, I would not support an attempt of the definition of the speed of light.

    „c equals to the distance between positions of target at the moment of arrival and of emitter at the moment of emission divided by the time of fligh."

    Imagine aliens more advanced than we are, and that they somehow know our whole numbers.

    Then you tell them, we know the importance of the number 6.283821 ...Tthey will say: We know that number.

    Then you offer them your light speed obtained in a way that you suggested. They concluded that it would be the first to explain to them the unit of time and that you still have 4 sources of measurement errors, and as they know errors are added. Also, they would probably have said that they need only one measurement of physical constants that equals approximately 137.035999 .... because they can not determine it exactly.

    However, there is way to accurately determine the units of measurement, as well as the speed of light with a minimum number of measurements.

    Regards,

    Branko

      My definition describes how to measure c in case of relative motion between emitter and target. Without such movement, Poincaré's two-way measurement is as correct as is one-way measurement.

      Regards

      The Shapiro delay can be explained by a varying speed of light.

      Dear John Hodge,

      Thank you for supporting my opinion that ethics needs correction.

      I even consider China's one-child politics a sucess from which their economy and the world's ecology benefits a lot.

      What about the relation between model and reality, we may be pretty close to each other.

      Being an engineer, I too feel as an outsider with respect to the use of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. I recammend my reference [1]. The more I dealt with mistakes concerning the imaginary unit.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Aw far as I know, the Shapiro delay is a delay similar to refraction within a plasma. Except for its prediction by Shaporo from Schwarzschild solution, it has perhaps nothing to do with the much larger Relativistic length contraction according to SR. Nobody questions that the speed of light outside a vacuum can get smaller than c.

      My point is, c only depends on the differene between the positions of emitter at the moment of emission and of target at the moment of arrival. It doesn't depend on a speed.

        What do you think of stating the speed of light is the highest that matter can travel in any environment? Shapiro may be because of gravitational field density.

        There is always a gravitational field. Therefore, the idea of a vacuum is not measurable.

        Hodge

        Indeed, an ideal vacuum is certainly just a reasonable fiction as is the limit value c too.

        Incidentally, I don't think that matter can travel as fast as light may do.

        When you read my essay you should have noticed I often used the expression "as if" which reminds of Vaihinger and the "Freunde des als ob" in Halle.

        My University of Magdeburg is named after Otto de Guericke who in the 17th century didn't just convincingly demonstrate an almost evacuated space but nonetheless also an electrostatic force across vacuum as a model of forces between the sun and planets.

        The magnetic field around a conductor is calculated as extending endlessly as does the gravitational field too. Strictly thought, it completely vanishes only at r=0 where naive theory could expect it to approach the singularity infinity.

        Mathematicians dislike my clear distinction between Galileo's logical quality of being infinite and Leibniz/Bernoulli's mathematical quantity of (relative) infinity.

        Dear Dr. Blumschein,

        Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about any imaginary invisible "elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond."

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        On p. 3, I tried to describe as clearly as possible what is reasonably meant with the notion "reality" in common sense.

        Dear Dr. Blumschein,

        In my essay, I have accurately contended that that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Simple verifiable reality has absolutely nothing to do with your attempt "to describe as clearly as possible what is reasonably meant with the (abstract) notion (of invisible)"reality" in (invisible abstract) common sense."

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        I hope, John C Hodge accepted my arguments.

        What about Joe Fisher's "am" I am not a native speaker.

        Joe could perhaps be so kind telling me whether he refers to what I am calling the logical infinity or to what was called the mathematical infinity.

        I am familiar with G. Cantor's infinitum absolutum in contrast to his infinitum creatum sive transfinitum.

        Aristotle stated: infinitum actu non datur.

        When my essay didn't gave a reference to Katz & Katz and to Bedürftig, this doesn't mean I am not aware of them.

        Dear Dr. Blumschein,

        If you would be kind enough to read my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, you would find out exactly what I mean by using the word "am."

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Eckard

        Very nice essay. Nicely written and I also agree with most therein, certainly including Darwin. I've just speed read most for now but I'll read again slower and make notes.

        I also agree your response to JOHN ref the SHAPIRO effect. Venus express found more than enough gas atmosphere for the delays found. Shame such clear refutations don't spread.

        But I still see flaws in your simple sounding 'c';

        1st; Who can properly determine 'Time of Flight'? The answer is nobody! Choose an observer and I'll show you his problem.

        2nd; Take a scenario with an emitter near Mars heading for Earth, which is heading towards it, then an intermediate probe in Earth's ionosphere (sending 'check' signals to Earth & back). We know the signal travels at c wrt the sol rest frame. It's recorded by the probe on passing it, then again on Earth. Your description will fail because either it does the last bit from the probe to Earth at a DIFFERENT SPEED to the probes signals, OR it changes speed on passing the probe so falsifying your description.

        Of course it does the latter (as at Venus) but also then does c in the LOCAL rest frame. (as ALL physics is local). It therefore does TWO speed changes on interaction with fermions & gas, to the refractive index PLUS to the rest frame of the fermions it's been re-emitted by. You should find that matches all observation flawlessly. Remember fermions live in all space.

        Of course SR is wrong, but you really need to impartially review your alternative as we'll need a flawless one if it's to stand any chance of replacing SR!

        Peter

          Dear Eckard Blumschein,

          It is a nice and thought provoking essay. Thank you for sharing such nice thoughts. I am writing below some points from your essay...........

          Real good points from your essay are....

          1. Lagrangian [1], Hamiltonian, path integral, and boundary element method don't make real time useless. The words wandering, towards, and goal in the topic correspond to the dynamic view by Heraclitus in contrast to the static existence monism by Parmenides. In common sense there is no doubt; Zeno's paradoxes show that Parmenides and his supporters including Einstein took an unreasonable position akin to fatalism

          2. God created man as a copy of His own does perhaps mean, man created God as his copy.

          3. Notions like point or infinite are reasonable idealizations on a sound logical basis. However, they must not be naively attributed to reality. The other way round, it is also unreasonable to try and forge fundamentals of mathematics as to agree with real structures.

          I am just adding some more points for further debate...

          a. Denial of evolution implies the so called block universe that assumes time as eternally extending between minus and plus infinity with no beginning and no end.

          .............Time will not go back, we can see earlier times (like yesterday) as history only. There is no going back in time except in science fiction movies. Going into earlier times is not possible..........

          b. Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error led Kant and Laplace to cosmogony already before Darwin boosted it. Cosmogony is the thinking that the whole universe was born at a single time.

          .............But the Galaxies born at different times and the Galaxies quench at different times, makes this thinking is not correct.....................

          c. Cosmogonists think 'The universe could have contained the singularity because the universe evolved or changed from a prior state (the prior state was "empty space", or maybe a state that could not be called "space" at all).' These cosmogonist philosophers think that no experiment is necessary, as universe was created by will of Gods probably....

          ..... There is much experimental evidence against this type of thinking is it not.............

          d. "....Amount and width of not yet filled gaps in the imaginable evolution from cosmology up to miracles of human brain are decreasing. Among them is the step from a-biological self-organization in physics and chemistry to self-reproducing plants and animals......."

          Why to think that way, ... probably the Universe had a mind that produces Galaxies, the same thing continued in smaller things also probably

          e. The spatial aspect of such reality is isotropy.

          ........... Isotropy is not there in the Universe

            Dear SNP Gupta,

            I guess you are a believer with sound common sense who after employment in a steel company dealt with galaxies. Therefore, I hope you may read my essay entirely as to point out where you don't agree. My goal and criterium is non-arbitrariness.

            Having just mentioned Kant's role together with Laplace as founders of cosmogenity, I should add of the scientific one. Their reasoning was devoted to the possible evolution of cosmos, NOT to speculations about something like Adam and Eve or a Big Bang out of nothing. Kant predicted the existence of what we now are calling galaxies. At least the idea of first men does even contradict to the meanwhile good substantiated idea of beginningless gradual evolution.

            Peter,

            My one-way definition of the speed of light in empty space is apparently too simple and irrefutable as to be accepted by you. What is the obstacle?

            Everybody is used to refer speed to something. You mentioned "the rest frame of the fermions" and "the sol rest frame". Persson's essay (A Tragedy in Physics) mentions "boundary conditions that are relevant in relation to the wave motion".

            In contrast, I agree with Einstein on that there is no naturally preferred point of reference, no rest frame in space. Because my definition is restricted to empty space, it does perhaps not collide with your focus on reemission by fermions. I wonder if I am the first one who claims that the far field of light waves in empty space simply propagate with no direct reference to a frame of emitter, reemitter, medium, or receiver. Only the distance matters, not an arbitrarily chosen point of reference. Did nobody else already distinguish between empty space as a medium as Maxwell imagined it and empty space as mere mutual distances?

            Incidentally, what is your opinion concerning the conflict between limitless growth of world population and protection of nature, etc.? I guess, I understand the voters for Brexit and Trump to some extent. Germany's future president often says the world is out of joint. I see a necessity for correcting ethics.

            Eckard

            Eckard,

            On humans v nature I broadly agree with you as my essay on that. But I also identify the

            Eckard,

            On your 'c' description. The basic issue I have is that it doesn't meet the essential test of hypotheses; correspondence to findings. As an astronomer I've focussed on that subject for decades and it's indisputable. What will please you is that the current SR interpretation similarly fails. Einstein conveniently 'forgot' the odd issue (actually he didn't as he well recognised even in 1952 that he hadn't found the complete answer). Relativists will always sidestep each issue circularly, so the theory can take us nowhere.

            Unfortunately that's exactly what you've been drawn into with your own description. I set out some simple falsifications clearly in my post but you chose to 'look away' as they're inconvenient. You DO need some reference frame to define your emission 'point' and measure from it even though claiming you don't. Your description is also inconsistent for our observer at rest in Earths outer atmosphere. Good science is about facing and recognising inconsistencies. So identify a valid observer for me!

            The first thing you must accept is the reality of experimental discovery. If you haven't looked' then do so as any solution described will otherwise fail. We know very accurately the make-up of most of 'space'. Certainly none of it is entirely 'empty', just quite diffuse between galaxy clusters, and all regions are in relative motion. Einstein didn't know any of that but we now DO so can correct the errors - once we apply not ignore it!

            The more flawed ideas there are the more confused the situation and the more confounded will be our efforts to gain clarity. That's why they must be 'called out'. I'm sure you agree our biggest problem is those clinging to old or 'pet' theories and ignoring evidence. That's non-s(ci)ence!

            Your description only needs a little updating to correspond to reality and be useful. I'm sure your mind can still do that if the will exists!

            Best

            Peter