James you wrote "You argue that what we observe as Relativity effects are due to variations in the arrival of light." How the seen product looks (could be rod like, could be clock like) will depend upon what sensory information has been amalgamated into that representation. It has to do with the distribution of the EMr in space and how the observer interacts with it. Sensory information is generated in response to the stimulus of electromagnetic radiation with frequency and intensity profile; changing over time if there is alteration of the relation between the observer and the source, and or a change in relationship with the already emitted radiation itself, within the environment. (The source may no longer exist). Same applies with a photosensitive device transforming EMr input to product in its own way.

Dear Georgina,

Perhaps I don't remember clearly. Please correct me. One example is the too long pole in the too short barn problem. Relativity says that it doesn't matter whether the pole is moving away from the observer or toward the observer, it will, at sufficient relative velocity, fit inside the barn. Will the pole fit inside the barn for both circumstances? Will the pole only fit inside the barn for one of those circumstances? Will the pole only look like it fits inside the barn for both of those circumstances? Will the pole only look like it fits inside the barn for only one of those circumstances?

An earlier request on my part, I asked for mass to be defined before presenting a theoretical correction. You haven't done so. Actually, my point this time is that if there is any scientifically trained onlooker who thinks of jumping in and correcting me, I expect them to arrive with a mathematical definition of mass.

James, I think it is necessary to have both beables and measurables in science. The beables are actual parts of physical reality, whereas the measurables are those variables we use to gain some cognition of the external world. Those measurables allow construction of models and ideas about how that World/universe functions. By your way of reasoning it would seem to me there would be only measurables. As I have been discussing recently those measurables are found by the relation between the object of interest and something else providing a 'relative to this' context. They do not exist without such a relation. I don't think what mass is can be defined in terms of measurables. Though inertia is associated with mass and when you define mass as negative acceleration I think it is inertia not mass that you are defining. The mass is about amount of 'existingness'.

Georgina,

You didn't answer my pole barn question.

"Though inertia is associated with mass and when you define mass as negative acceleration I think it is inertia not mass that you are defining."

I define mass as inverse acceleration which is not negative acceleration. That inverse acceleration is the acceleration of light. I introduced the principle of conservation of acceleration. That which a freely falling object gains, light traveling the same path loses.

"The mass is about amount of 'existingness'."

This is the physics of words that I find meaningless.

James,

Give YOUR mathematic definition of 'mass'. And remember, the inverse square law is an invariance operation so that the change measures the same from either reference frame, just as the Lorentz transform does in SR.

Hi John,

"Give YOUR mathematic definition of 'mass'. And remember, the inverse square law is an invariance operation so that the change measures the same from either reference frame, just as the Lorentz transform does in SR."

I see you have not read my essay entries. Nice challenge, but first you either can define mass or you can't. Does your favorite physics include a defined mass or an undefined mass? The Lorentz transforms are believed to perform in the manner you describe. However, I read them differently. The complete change is not the same from each observer's reference frame. The Lorentz transforms should not be applied reciprocally. They are not simply transform equations. That is a subject that I am raising somewhere else.

James,

Now, please. Do not take umbrage. I fully accept covariance within a closed system allowing measurement in a 3D+T analytical format where light velocity can be a variable and the Time parameter a constant. To speak of definition of 'mass' in terms of 'inverse acceleration of light' goes to density of energy increasing towards a center of a self-gravitational domain, consistent with the conventional rationale of the refraction index. After all, e=mc^2 is only half the battle and is a mathematical result from only two degrees of freedom which does not include 'acceleration'. SR is derived from uniform motion, and as AE once wrote; 'As a consequence of the theory SR, the energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia.' Inertia still, today, being only an operational definition.

Could we not at least agree that a covariant domain may be hypothetically achieved as a theoretical, background independent, free rest mass? That is to say it may become incorporated into reality, but must truly be respected as existing in the realm of contemplative analysis for the sake of firstly isolating a quantity of energy. Then, as a unitary field, the problems of measurement and definition can be addressed. We would take the privilege of assuming an 'outside looking in' role of instantaneous observation. Quite old school, benchtop type of stuff, but has the advantage of confining inquiry to a manageable set of criteria. jrc

James, I'm sorry for getting the way you define mass wrong. It is clear to me now that it is quite different from what I supposed.

I think you might agree that there is a difference between a materially existing thing and a non existent thing. Some quality at the foundational level that enables material being, that differentiates it from not it outside. IE the difference between that being and not being (of a fermion particle, atom, substance, material or Object thing.) Different materially existing things can be compared giving a measurable with the name 'mass'. What is being compared, as I see it, is their material 'existing-ness'. Beables with material 'existing-ness (mass) have other associated measurables enabling mass to be put into equations.

  • [deleted]

Is the phishing bot attack over? The headings column is still full of lead-ins which seem to have been deleted from access as 'inappropriate'. There apparently is no sub-routine in the FQXi server to eliminate those corresponding headings that crowd out clicks to ongoing dialogue in the forum. The likelihood of such blanket postings as those of 'brain wave' being a sucker punch to get responses that open a malicious software of some sort is potentially high in the so called 'self-policing' of the www. And unfortunately, that same 'self-policing' fails due to the costs of trying to hold the large competing publishers of content accountable. "There's no end of it" so let's just clear out this batch of intrusive mass marketing hype; is the cost effective response of most open source websites.

However, as an effort to reclaim the FQXi header column in effect of a class action, I now submit this post.

    Dear Anonymous,

    You may not have noticed that Professor Scott Aaronson and Professor Max Tegmark are users of this site. They are the foremost experts of computer programming in the world. No phishing intrusions take place, and although individual members sometimes chuck in a self advertisement comment, those comments are easily removed.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    "No phishing intrusions take place..." - Joe Fisher, Realist!?!

    My tech guy says that the sort of "IT support" links that have been appearing in fast succession on FQXi are typical of a common 'Trojan Horse' virus which is robotically perpetrated as coming from different sources. And, DO NOT call that number, and DO NOT provide your email address or password(s), and DO NOT surrender administrator function to any instructions. Just close out and shut down!!! jrc

    Dear John R, Cox,

    You have an anonymous tech guy who has told you this for free? Wow. All of the tech guys and gals I have ever contacted have always charged me a fee for any information I have requested about my computer, telephone, television, and dishwasher.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Joe,

    You are certainly defensive of what most all educated computer users are accustomed to being very careful to avoid.

    It is not correct to say that noise does not convey information. After all, every null result is ultimately limited by noise and so null results are necessarily what we call noise.

    Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 14, 2017 @ 17:49 GMT 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).

    Thus classical noise is what carries the Shannon "0" bit while quantum noise is what carries the quantum qubit, which is a superposition of both "0" and "1".

    The confusion here is due to the limitations of classical knowledge, which is causal and deterministic and sources are always singular, and quantum knowledge, where sources remain uncertain and in superposition.

    6 days later

    Dear Physicists,

    The first mistake y'all made was when you decided that Nature had to have complex secrets, without specifying why. Only humanly contrived conjecture am capable of sustaining complex speculation Nature had to furnish reality for all living beings and all non-living things. Nature's visible simplicity is utterly extravagant. Every real surface of every real person place and thing am actually existing securely attached to a real visible Natural infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    12 days later
    • [deleted]

    I'm a little surprised that this article has gotten so little interest, given the preferences of a number of regular commentators for either QM or Relativistic theoretical interpretation. While the article itself is quite brief and does not go into specifications of the experimental protocols to be employed, careful reading does reveal that firstly; the experimenters led by Andrew Briggs at U of Oxford are treating the theoretical question as an attempt to find a realistic measurement in the relativistic macro-realm produced by Quantum events in the micro-realm. I would personally expect some success.

    It does not take too great a leap to consider the parameters of 'superposition of quantum states' as proposed by Gerard Milburn, U of Queensland, Brisbane, being collapsed under gravity into definite states, as a practical mathematical deconstruction into several spin characteristics associated with any particular chosen atom. And a little research into the lattice structure of silicon nitride shows that depending on the method of processing a pure molecular product can result in an inherent stress at the corners of the atomic matrix. So by supercooling the thin wafers, that stress would tend to sustain resonant vibration in the lattice structure without much dampening interference from spurious vibrations. It would be nice to know more about what sort of detection systems the Briggs team with Edward Laird and Natalia Ares are employing, but as very brief, low intensity emissions of energy as electromagnetic frequency pulses could be expected, Small Quantum Interference Detectors (SQUIDs) placed in an array might get some clicks. jrc

      Anonymous, I agree. I don't know how I overlooked this article, especially since it is a primary research interest of mine. Re: sustaining resonant vibration without damping interference, what effect would a perfect damper have? My attempt to answer:

      https://www.researchgate.net/project/Chasing-the-source-of-gravity-down-a-black-hole-and-back/update/5974d7474cde26e1c1d0fc6f

      title and abstract:

      Dynamic spacetime imposes matter-wave continuity

      We identify a least wave harmonic in 1-dimension continuous spacetime, a ground state source by which every succeeding global state is locally connected. Continuous spacetime allows generalization, in Hilbert space, to a single wave state that manifests physically as a spacetime soliton. We propose a validating experiment.

      I must be losing my mind. I find that I carried on a running dialogue in this forum, and posted the same article. Maybe it bears repeating--maybe not.

      Tom,

      The Briggs experiment as presented in the article does clearly imply that there is no boundary between the Quantum and Classical. It takes a little bit of teasing out of the article to recognize where the Quantum events occur, and where the effects produce a measurable condition. Both, it seems, are in those tiny, membrane-like flecks of silicon nitride. What is not explained in the article is how those flecks are suspended in what sort of containment, to be set vibrating by what means, in the first place. But it is interesting to treat the QM methodology of the additive process of Spin Number for any given Characteristic, as a superposition of several Characteristics of one particle, rather than the usual treatment of the same single Characteristic as a superposition of several particles. At least that is how I understand the Milburn theory base as articulated.

      Researchgate requires certifications to gain access to archives, which does keep the discourse scientific but also limits knowledge of your papers. I do have at least one on my reader that is on the soliton, and which I think might find a fit as a gravitational collapse model of the Briggs/Milburn superposition of characteristics into a definite state. Though I would think that where the gravitational collapse of superposed states under near absolute Zero K would approach a definite ground state, would be where an emission of energy would become necessary. And it would be by detection of that thermodynamically necessary emission that would produce a quantitative result in the experiment. The scope of the article doesn't allow for a presentation of the theoretical base, but it can be safely assumed that is predictive of a time dependent shedding of energy quantity for any collapsing superposition and thus would be detectable in a frequency window by a SQUID.

      In casual language, how do you see your paper as having a pertinent fit with the experiment? best - jrc