Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Scales

Georgina,

Let's take just the blue-green spectral line of hydrogen. The only way we can detect Doppler Shift is by it's position in what would always appear to be a continuous visible spectrum. Light is going to go at light velocity. So...at velocity, if a star were viewed as it moved very rapidly away from us, even though hydrogen would emit that BG wavelength, by the time it was through the Transition Zone of emission, it would be 'stretched out' and the absorption spectral line would be detected in a region more towards the red end of visible. But we would know it by its position among its companion Hydrogen spectral lines. All the other emissions would do likewise, so ultra violet would become visible while red would become infrared. (The Transition Zone of 2 wavelengths is it's own theoretical study)

Likewise, light going at light velocity, would be encountered more rapidly by an approaching receiver. What slays people is that at velocities at the very high end of the velocity scale, the receiver physically compresses along the direction of motion. All of which physically preserves the electrodymanics of the induction of the 'leap-frog' electro-magnetic reaction to the absorption of energy by that c proportional difference between the electric field and its companion magnetic field.

Doppler shift of sound in not the same thing. What your sensory organs do with that electromagnetically induced reaction, that you become consciously aware of is 'information'. You may wish to ascribe information to reactions that you are unaware of, but then the onus is upon you to physically prove what that is. In physics, they are known as properties, having known characteristic results.

How we become 'informed' is still a great mystery in neural-physiological research. I'll accept their findings.

Sorry to wear an old hat, but it's well sweat-stained and I like the darned thing. :-) jrc

John, sorry I don't know what Doppler shift has to do with what I wrote. Could you address the concept of a reference frame in Relativity together with the process of sight? IE that photon sensory information has to encounter the retina to enable the sensory system to generate the seen image. (Though I suppose in this day and age one could contemplate information being directly fed to the visual processing areas of the brain, but that's a by the way.) The content of the reference frame does not exist as Terrain but as generated Map. The paradoxes treat the Map as Terrain.

I am not using 'what one becomes aware of' as information (as you have described it), but the EM 'signal' that is received. The product of processing is knowledge or experience not information, as I am using the term. It is what I have called 'potential sensory data'.

Don't get me wrong; I realize that at everyday speeds and distances an aspect of the Terrain will closely match the one generated by information processing. That makes sight useful. But Still Terrain and Map can not be regarded as identical.

The map is a representation of the Terrain from information received -so it is a partial view. There will also be gaps in the information processed, as some will not cause a change in a photorecetor pigment that goes on to form part of the signal sent to the brain. The brain will do 'significant' gap filling as necessary. Some information is amalgamated and the brain works to accentuate important features that allow discrimination and identification. That we see high intensity as lightness and lack of intensity as darkness (pertaining to amount of photons received) and colours with some correlation to frequency (but also other factors) does not mean these are Terrain characteristics. They are Map product characteristics. So over to you re. Reference frames-

Georgina,

"For vision there has to be receipt of sensory information, in the form of photons providing frequency and intensity data. It is just information. Yet Relativity does not take account of that, and so the things seen are regarded as Objects themselves."

I accept that colloquialisms have a utility in logical discourse, to summarize otherwise lengthy detail. But. (1) sensory information is confined to the physiology. (2) photons exhibit frequency and intensity but only transport energy. (3) the data is provided by the generality of Maxwell's equations. (4) Relativity takes all that into account, it says so in the title. (5) things seen are not regarded as the objects themselves, refer to (3). (6) people start learning about subjects without prior knowledge, so there is not sufficient 'knowns' to support full incorporation of knowledge as 'information'.

It may be common in discourse to speak of 'a red photon', or that the photon 'carries information' that the apple is red. Those are colloquialisms. There is quite literally no experimental evidence that 'red' exists anywhere other than the mind. Yes, I said that. What makes anything visible is just as dark as any other region of the spectrum. What can be said is that what we do know something of, is only the response of a detection system and to a lesser extent through deduction, the behavior of an emitter. That is the science (not much, eh), not the psychology, metaphysics or philosophy. How could a photon provide information when science can't agree on what it is? Some says its a flower, some says its a weed. :-) jrc

Hi Georgina,

" ... Terrain and Map can not be regarded as identical.

The map is a representation of the Terrain from information received -so it is a partial view."

By definition, then, a map (m) and the ideal Map (M) only map with 1 to 1 to 1 certainty, within the boundaries prescribed by quantum mechanics.

1 to 1 to 1? Make that 1 to 1. Sorry

Georgi,

okay, I've had my coffee ration and cigarettes. So I'll get back to you about reference frames;

Let's demystify. Yes, Al made a big splash in '05, maybe like when Apple unveiled the 'smart phone', but more for the photo-electric effect and e=mc^2 because that was where the bucks were in industry. But in the hard sciences, SR solved a problem that had progressively become urgent in the preceeding 48 years. Maxwell had blown the doors off Newton's coupe in 1867, by answering the hows and whys of chemistry and physics when chemistry ruled the roost. And swung wide the doors of astronomy which was always in the lead in mathematics. He was opaque, but not like Newton, simply consumed in his work. His students interpreted his theoretical results and he quickly became THE 'Inconvenient Truth' of the Newtonian, absolute predeterminism Age. Because, at every day speeds and distances, the constancy of light velocity was negligible to computational results. But over long terms and extrapolated to vast distances, the time parameter and distance parameter would analytically diverge to an unacceptable degree. But Newton was King of gravity and his theory of light allowed "v+c" which Maxwell's results refuted. And chemists had found a unification with physics in Maxwell because it showed that chemical reactions were predictable and stable due to that 'c' difference, and that chemical reactions of all sort could be understood as an electro-magnetic exchange of energy. C had to be constant everywhere for anything to work anywhere. Something had to give. And that something was what Einstein set out to find. The reference frame of the observer is arbitrarily assigned a 'rest position', the invariance of electromagnetic induction elsewhere moving at a constant velocity relative to the observer, is maintained by a co-efficiency of that velocity difference and the effects of velocity on the reactivity to induction by (say) the molten lava spewing forth on a distant rocky planet, or the photosynthesis of your salad greens. He didn't invent SR, he solved it. And what he found was that for light velocity to be constant relative to anything and everything, space and/or time had to give a little back. How you allocate your qualifications to that, I really can't say. Good Luck.

"Rods and Clocks?' yehh, they'll do. :-) jrc

Dear James,

This is not a social club. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?

Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear John,

This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?

Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear John,

This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?

Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

OOPS, 38 YEARS, 1867 TO 1905

Steve,

Focusing on the information, in order to eliminate (not merely reduce) the measurement errors caused by noise, is what Information Theory is all about. There is only one universe. But Shannon offered a long-ignored insight, into why naive observers seem to perceive two; they remain inappropriately focused on the measurements, rather than the measurements' information content. The latter is the only thing that conveys repeatable, actionable "detection" of anything to ever interact with (and thus capable of supporting the existence of identical interactions amongst identical particles).

Rob McEachern

Robert,

"identical interactions amongst identical particles"

allow us to deduce something of those particles or interactions. But that does not mean that one is "sharing information" with another, just that the values of properties are the same. Modulate that interaction, then you have a basis for 'information'. jrc

Thanks for the history lesson John. The bit that seemed relevant to my argument was "space and time had to give a little". I'll agree however the space/time that gives is the space/time of the product of information processing, not the Territory which contains the sources of the information. The objects emitting the electromagnetic radiation that has fallen on them or from chemical / physical processes happening such as for light bulbs. There is no territory other than the information in that model. The information is all just there. So it takes no account of physical processes we know are going on involving material objects. Time as far as the observer is concerned is what is in the seen present,from that observer position and state of motion, and that is what has been obtained from the received information, not what exists independently from thephoton information mediated generated product (which may include perception if the observer is sentient). Yes it can be abstractly calculated but that is modelling what would happen with an actual observer. Being able to do those calculations does not change what it is, fundamentally. (As Einstein suspected it is an incomplete model.)(In regard to your" my own objection to the egeneration incarnation of information as being something real

John, Re. your "How could a photon provide information when science can't agree on what it is?"

Rod and Cone Visual Pigments and Phototransduction through Pharmacological, Genetic, and Physiological Approaches (I haven't read this yet but it looks like it might give some interesting insight into the subject.

Absorption spectra of human cone pigments

I think it is important to use the sciences as a whole rather than only consider within the bounds of a single discipline.

Georgina,

I admit I'm fuzzy about what you are getting at, but what is important I think, is that you are able to develop a sound overall analytical framework. It seems pretty ambitious to me because it's looks like trying to build a 'plug-in' continuity tester for everything. And there isn't anything I've seen about physics that isn't full of holes. I'll pause, maybe I'll catch the drift and have something useful to mention but I'm stretching now. :-) jrc

oh, 1865, I was thinking of another thing.

What is unclear John? Space-time is a product not the foundational reality. Mentally treating the product as space containing material things leads to the paradoxes. The product and the information in the environment from which products can be generated is not the "really real" reality of material objects. Not having that foundational level, source of the information and hence source of the generated product is a pretty big hole.

"He didn't invent SR, he solved it. And what he found was that for light velocity to be constant relative to anything and everything, space and/or time had to give a little back."

He didn't do that using physics equations. Neither space nor time have ever been directly represented in physics equations. Their substitutes are 'l' for length and 't' for duration which I will represent using 'time' to appear to follow convention and not have to use the word 'duration' against claims about a universal property of time. The unit of length is the meter and the unit of 'time' is the second. Both of these units have rules of measurement that are entirely dependent upon the use of objects, none of which are either space or time. There are no units for either space or time. There are no isolated specimens of either space or time in any laboratory. No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time. All empirical evidence arrives as patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to 'time'. Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities.

James,

you write "All empirical evidence arrives as patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to 'time'." Well if you want to be precise, no it isn't patterns in change of velocity of objects because it isn't the objects themselves that are seen.

John,

I am not a military person. I had to look up "take care of your six" because I found it confusing. I see it means watch out for your back/rear or underside depending on whether one is on land or airborne. I now think you are implying my ideas will be shot down, presumably by you. But I don't know if that is the correct intended meaning. I thought it could possibly just mean take care in a friendly signing off way or another warning of some kind, which I find a bit disturbing. So I would be grateful if you would please try to use plain English, or explain what you mean, in future to avoid that kind of ambiguity.