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
Peter,
You wrote: "You DO need some reference frame to define your emission 'point' and measure from it".
No. As do incremental sensors, I only measure the distance between the emitting point at the moment of emission and the point of arrival at the moment of arrival. Emitter and receiver may have frames of reference that are moving relative to each other.
In particular if their distance doesn't change then it and also the time of flight can be measured, in principle.
You wrote: "1st; Who can properly determine 'Time of Flight'? The answer is nobody! Choose an observer and I'll show you his problem."
I am curious. For the sake of simplicity I consider an emitter E and a receiver/observer R on a line without any reference point. Let the distance between E and R increase during the time of flight from d_0 to d_1.
Notice: There is no third point of reference relative to which E and R could have a velocity of relevance.
The notorious problem is thinking in terms of either the Newtonian ballistic picture where the speed of a bullet depends on the speed of the cannon or of the picture how a wave travels in a medium.
My definition makes an uncommon distinction between empty space without any point of reference and the hypothetical medium aether that was ad hoc attributed to a differently understood space, thought to include a center point or a boundary being equivalent to it. CMBR is not qualified as such boundary.
Eckard
Eckard,
Your essay is a very good recounting of the historical evolution of mathematics and philosophy over the past few thousand years. It could just as easily have been presented as an entry in the last essay contest. The emphasis upon the evolution of natural systems is a key point I think.
When speaking of infinite series, you note that an infinite series cannot be complete. Would you make a similar comparison between evolution and "emergence"?
BTW, although an infinite series can not be computed in finite time, a partial sum and a residual can be added together to give the correct result if the residual coincidentally has the correct value.
I agree with your definition for light speed. My only question is how to measure the transit time ....
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Hello Eckard,
Congratulations for your essay,objective, rational and respecting our postulates.Relevant like always to read your developments.
All the best and good luck.
Gary,
Thank you for agreeing on my definition for the speed of light in vacuum. There is nonetheless a paper of NIST in nature 2010 that allegedly proofs time dilution. I see my definition an alternative. While exact one-way measurement of time is indeed a challenging task, I rather trust in logical scrutiny. My essay focuses on checking non-arbitrariness.
As did already Leibniz, I tend to question any perfect symmetries in nature.
To me, frequently occurring striking mirror symmetry rather indicates a mathematical artifact. In general, I see mathematical items like the line, the circle, and infinity merely ideal and therefore strictly speaking unphysical simplifications of reality.
If we are speaking of an infinite series, we have convergent ones in mind. The alternating series 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, ... does not converge.
Entities may suddenly emerge in any part of reality including physics, live, history, politics, science, feelings, ideas, plans, art, etc.; I see them as always just distinguished levels of an evolution that is pretty continuous and traceable back to multiple causes. A foetus evolves and gets a baby with its emergence by birth.
I don't see the primary goal for menkind in equality and freedom but in survival by means of responsible self-control. Leaving a poisoned earth is a dangerous illusion.
With your theory you will need good look, too. I don't expect much recognition of my often unwelcome reasoning in this contest. I merely hope my grandchildren will see me active on the right side from the perspective of responsible human evolution.
Regards,
Eckard
I feel in debt to FQXi for guiding me to develop hopefully useful while admittedly uncommon conclusions.
Eckard,
Re; "I consider an emitter E and a receiver/observer R on a line without any reference point. Let the distance between E and R increase during the time of flight from d_0 to d_1. ... There is no third point of reference relative to which E and R could have a velocity of relevance."
OK. Firstly, the ability to measure 'in principle' is highly arguable and anyway meaningless if it can't be done in reality. No possibility of experiment = valueless model.
You also DO have a 'hidden' reference point for measurement; which is the 'position' of observer R with respect to (wrt) E at the moment of emission. Doing away with backgrounds is ok but it can't also do away with that! You'll struggle to impose that over embedded beliefs so let me put it again like this;
How can R ever know 'where' or HOW FAR AWAY E is at the time of emission??
The fact is Eckard he can't can he!
Sure Einstein was wrong, but your simplest of descriptions wasn't 'missed' by he and others but dismissed as valueless.
Just to finish; If an observer was beside E what would he pin his instrument or 'tape measure' too to judge the distance to R by? YT The only solution is to CREATE the reference point you've tried to remove. (And unless he traveled at light speed he could never find R anyway).
Can you think of any application where the description may be of use? As an astronomer who's struggled to improve on inconsistent data and flawed distance measurement 'conventions' already I can't find any. If we take an observer on a planet offset half way between E and R then we're just back to and observer reference frame wrt R and E.
There IS a useful logical solution but you must perhaps be honest with yourself that it lies elsewhere.
Nonetheless your essay itself deserves a high score. However my first score was high and I was immediately trolled with two 1's. I'll hold fire so you don't suffer the same fate, unless you're unconcerned.
Peter
Peter,
You are unable to get free from your selfish point of view. You asked: "How can R ever know 'where' or HOW FAR AWAY E is at the time of emission??" As an astronom you should know that already Roemer in 1676 and Breadley in 1728 managed to determine the one-way speed of light from Jupiter's satellites and stellar aberration, respectively. Fitzeau (1849), Foucault (1862), and Michelson (1879) used a toothed wheel or a rotating mirror. Since then, inferometric measurements were performed in labs with stationary equipment that emits and receives the light.
My students regularly used a simple means as to roughly measure the speed of signals. Of course, we measured distances before the experiments, and time by means of signals of given frequency on an oscilloscope. When I reduced the issue to E and R on a line, I assumed empty space consisting of mutual distances and a pre-SR notion of time.
I translate your teleological ascription of missing "knowledge" to R into a more serious argument: You argue that there is no causal link between the time of flight and the distance between E and R. Indeed, the value c of the speed of light in vacuum is an empirical measure despite its relation to epsilon and my.
My definition differs from Poincaré's two-way approach while it is similar to the aether hypothesis except for it doesn't refer to a light-carrying medium.
If you are still convinced to have a better solution, you might point to it.
Eckard