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

Georgina,

Just briefly, it's not my thing, but that is all a little more dinstinct. And that is the root of the problem in definition of terms to say where the boundary is between what is the physical and what is interpreted to be information. As in Roberts arguments, it isn't information until we assign what it is supposed to be about, beforehand. Where we might apply a code to a system of observation is the prerequisite to generate data, and that's simply a given to most scientists. "Codicillary" is the adjective of the legal term "codicil" which refers to an article subsequent to the drawing of an instrument, such as a "Will". And you might find that it depends on which direction you are tracking effect, which is most pertinent to drawing the boundary. So it occurred to me that you might want to reserve "iWord" for the mathematical value side of the puzzle piece. Firstly, you are building a Codex.

later, chores await. jrc

Dear Anonymous,

You are quite correct in asserting that this thread of humanly contrived abstract comments resembles a pig pile. It is a pity that these correspondents fail to realize that 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

Rob,

I address those issues in the paper (not the point-line thing, that was a feeble attempt at humor).

John, thanks good to know it is more distinct. It seems I just need to state up front that the content of the signal transmitted from object to receiver can be regarded as information because a retina or photocell array (or other device) is able to convert the received energy frequencies and intensities into signals that can be incorporated into a product.

If I talk about a signal I think I should also be clear that it is not just a uniform signal emitted from a singular object but that the radiation profile that is being emitted varies with the location on the surface of the source and variations in illumination. The observer will receive electromagnetic radiation with a distinct spatial, and temporal origin profile, 'reflected' in the product that is generated.

I think you are saying that how the radiation is defined depends on whether it is being considered at the receiver end or emitter end. From the'point of view' of the emitter or any object incapable of turning the radiation into a product, it isn't information , but to an object that can and in particular those that I have tried to differentiate (as having or being reality interfaces), it is information. So the boundary you mention is one of 'viewpoint'. But those objects don't have opinions.

The differentiation of the radiation that has not itself changed, to being information from not being information, is to do with vocabulary and not physics. It makes 'information' a word dependent on the kind of relationship an object or phenomenon has to objects in its environment. I haven't thought of it in that way before but considered either something has the potential to be information or it hasn't. I was going for it has the potential therefor it isinformation. On reflection that potential alone definition would include almost everything. I have simultaneously been trying to get across that the EMr does not have a meaning of itself, by unhelpfully saying it is just information. Whereas I should have said it is just radiation.

"Only true enough as you have written; 'space or time'."

No John Space-Time is no other thing. All empirical evidence credited to proving anything about space or time or space and time or space-time has to do with effects involving objects only. Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics. There are no experiments upon either space or time or space-time, unless of course it is admitted that space-time is a construct of theoretical physics and has nothing to do with the properties of either space or time. There is no information about the nature of cause of any kind. We receive information about effects only. We know what cause does.but we do not know what cause is. One piece of evidence for this dilemma is that current theoretical physics lacks fundamental unity. The cause of this lack of unity is the empirically unsupportable separation of cause into individual "natural" causes. Relativity theory is a theory that lacks any empirical support. My reason for saying this is because it relies upon the belief in space-contraction and time-dilation. Neither of these effects have ever been observed. The evidence put forward in support of them always is evidence of effects upon objects for empirically unverified causes. A theory can group together all the effects that can fit in its envelope; but, there is no evidence whatsoever that either space or time or their theoretical construct space-time, suffer effects caused by object or cause effects upon objects.

james A putnam

James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics."

No James it adds a great deal. It gives two different realms, which I could describe as adding an extra layer of universe or having The 'Map' as well as the 'Territory'. Space-time the realm of seen things and space the location of the source of the radiation from which signals are generated that can lead to seen or see-able product. Although not recognized as such when the term space-time was adopted and subsequently used, it is extremely important as a different category from space. Things in space-time have spatial and temporal 'flexibility' that Objects in space do not because of their construction from received EM radiation signals.

Georgina,

No Georgina!

"No James it adds a great deal. It gives two different realms, which I could describe as adding an extra layer of universe or having The 'Map' as well as the 'Territory'. Space-time the realm of seen things and space the location of the source of the radiation from which signals are generated that can lead to seen or see-able product. Although not recognized as such when the term space-time was adopted and subsequently used, it is extremely important as a different category from space. Things in space-time have spatial and temporal 'flexibility' that Objects in space do not because of their construction from received EM radiation signals."

There is no empirical evidence to support your position concerning anything said about either space or time, space and time, space-time, space+time,space with time, etc. There has never been any experimentation on any of the above theoretical forms of space & time. All experiments ever performed have been between objects as either source or target. Theoretical conjecture is for theorists. When physics returns itself to seeking out direct empirical support for its interpretations of properties, then we will know about the incredible differences between theory and reality. There is no way that physicists can tells us about the nature of the universe until after they have defined mass, temperature, and removed the circular definition of electric charge. Carry on! But when you want to correct me please begin it with a defined mass for a starting point. A definition of a physics property means a mathematical definition.

If a bit of noise is necessarily from just one source, then that is Shannon noise and is classical.

If a bit of noise if necessarily from a superposition of sources, then it is quantum phase noise.

Once science reliably measures quantum phase noise separate from classical Shannon noise, then science will know the truth. Until then, we wait for better measurements...

No James, my point was in defense of the very important, and significant little dash. I see no need to have the definition of mass as a starting point to that argument. James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics." I strongly disagree, and will leave it at that.

Dear Steve Agnew,

Singular infinite visible surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am capable of producing infinite noise. Nature does not produce finite scientific noise.

Joe Fisher, Realist

James,

On defining; mass, temperature and electric charge.

I quite agree that those parameters are ambiguous and require at least some definite qualification. I'm fond of saying that 'Mass is only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits the characteristics associated with matter'. And this is at the heart of the model of the electron Lorentz was working on, and abandoned when the Planck Quanta captured the imagination of physicists and mathematicians. And of course, with the Lorentz Electron goes a qualification of 'charge'. Temperature (the prime parameter in the distributive Planck Theorem) is associated with action, which goes to density of energy AND scale.

Yet to assert that theory cannot address these definition deficits, ignores that empiricism is constructed on theoretic parameterization in the first place. I for one have long pursued a Relativistic formulation of the Lorentz Electron Model, which is gravitationally dependent. And its doable, I can tell you that for free. Best wishes for your efforts, though we might agree to disagree. :-) jrc

James, I must add;

Navigation is time dependent, that is empirical fact. For 20 Days, the first GPS satellite was allowed to broadcast its onboard time registration without Relativistic correction. The satellite(s) make two complete orbits per day, while that orbital path progresses as the earth rotates. Thus two 'fixes' were obtained every day of the position of the tracking ground station every day giving an arclength, for 20 days. But each new day, the next fixes were from a different angle of attack, making a recursive arclength total a mathematical estimation. But after 20 days that total arclength was ~120 miles from the geophysical position of the ground tracking station. When the onboard relativistic correction to the satellite time registration was activated, the calculable 38,000 nanosecond prediction was confirmed to nearly perfect agreement, and the 50 nanosecond accuracy requirement was operationally established and is continually refined. What isn't empirically evident in that? jrc

Georgina,

"James, you wrote "Putting that "-" dash between space and time adds nothing to physics." I strongly disagree, and will leave it at that."

Your explanation of your version of what is space-time, is not empirical. The mainstream explanation of their version of what is space-time, is not empirical. Neither are based upon observed effects occurring to either space or time. I don't think that your version calls for such effects. However, length-contraction of objects is real and the direction of its velocity either toward an observer or away from an observer does not change the effect. Returning to my own statement to which there is objection: There is no empirical support for that dash to be inserted between the properties of space and time. The dash itself is not a mathematical symbol. It is not found in physics equations. Space and time can be joined together only by a physics equation. There is no such equation. The reason is because neither space nor time have ever been directly represented in any physics equations. Physics properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units. Neither space nor time have units. The units of meters and seconds are units of characteristics of objects and object behaviors. I will leave it at that unless there is a new protest.

James,

One objection. You have stated; "Physics properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units. Neither space nor time have units."

You are arguing that the units assigned by arbitrary convention to 'things' are privileged over the arbitrary conventions of assigned units of time and space.

And to encapsulate; the 3D+T argument that the synchronized Cesium Clocks used in the GPS infrastructure display a registration discrepancy as a causal effect of the gravitational 'force' dampening of atomic vibration, while arguable as a minor premise, fails in that same argument to the radiological decay of the man-made Plutonium used in the RPS modules on Voyager(s). If that argument (overlooking that the gravitational 'force' in Newtonian physics has never been qualified as to what it IS) is extended across eons in interstellar/intergalactic space of exponentially lower gravitational effect, the rate of decay as would be extrapolated from Voyager data over 40 years would render the census of parent transuranic isotopes in the earth's crust completely irrational. Those ancient distant, exploding, old stars that were the furnace of those parent isotopes would have had to be nearly entirely made up of a HUGE critical mass of only the heaviest atomic isotopes, from which Pu238 is produced.

The empirical evidence to date validates spacetime as having a real phyisicallity. And to quote Bertrand Russell; "Neither mathematics nor symbolic logic will study such special relations as (say) temporal priority, but mathematics will deal explicitly with the class of relations possessing the formal properties of temporal priority - properties which are summed up in the notion of continuity." for the very reason you state, that there is no absolute scale that we can refer to in deriving a standard unit for space or time parameters. This does not mean, however, that math and logic are prohibited from attempts to explain the arrow of time. Spacetime offers the most promising empiraclly valid parameterization to make such attempts. jrc

James, the dash is not joining properties of space and time. It is not a mathematical symbol, as you have pointed out. The dash gives us a new term, for something that is different from space and time. You may not like it but I am adopting space-time and furnishing it with the explanation I think best fits what it is -based on a lot of empirical evidence. The evidence shows that received em radiation is used in the generation of products that incorporate together information that was emitted at different times(different configurations of the Material [source reality] Universe).

Re.your'Space and time can be joined together only by a physics equation." Space-time is not an addition or aggregation of space and time, it is different from both; A different category.

Hi John, I replied to your helpful suggestions and wanted to share he improvement in expressing the concept. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2017 @ 20:46 GMT (below). I was hoping for some sort of feedback e.g. that's much better or its still obscure.

Dear Shivangi Trivedi.

All of the physicists who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible Universe. 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.

Apparently you have not noticed that you have eyes. Eyes are used for observation and every living creature has always been naturally provided with them.

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

Georgina,

Apologies, I've really been only taking some time outs, here. But yes, your efforts at distinction are becoming a bit more clear, and that distinction has a similarity to the difference in computer engineering where the 'interface' commonly gets confused with 'transport protocols'. The only true interface is between the programming language (choice) and the machine language bit sequence from which the chip architecture is designed (no choice). What those algorithmic transforms are, and how they interface with any programming language bit sequencing, "is a mystery of the first water" so to speak. And the thing of dark characters and HBO movie themes. (me? don't know...don't want to know) The similarity ends where in mathematical physics, despite the arguments about conventions, the so-called 'physical laws' are known without hacking an 'interface'. But bridging the protocols in applications interfacing with those hard and fast cenventions, is commonly done in physics on a one (app) to one (or more Laws) kind of ad hoc venture. Your effort would seem to mimic that general conundrum of anyone trying to make sense of it ALL. [ :-)"Abandon hope! all Ye that would enter here!" ] jrc

Georgina,

"Space-time is not an addition or aggregation of space and time, it is different from both; A different category."

No it is not a different category. What matters in physics is effects. Causes are unknowns. The empirically unjustified idea that there are multiple fundamental causes is contradicted by the orderly operation of the Universe. The effects upon space-time are length-contraction and time-dilation. These two effects are not in a new category except for the complete lack of empirical evidence for them to apply to space and time. The empirically unjustified idea that these two invented effects cause the effect we call gravity lives on only because mass is undefined. Since mass is an unexplained undefined property, theorists can fool around with it, even mold it to fit their theory. They get away with circular argument and circular 'definitions'. Proof of advancement in physics must include defining mass.

(The real observed effects called length-contraction and time-dilation are predicted to occur and do occur with the same result whether an object is moving toward an observer or away from an observer.)