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

James, re. your "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.' Yes they do not apply to space and time, they belong to space-time.

Georgi,

I would say that designing an 'interface'; from a nexus of application transport protocols in the observable realm, to/from a nexus of physical law operational criteria - is what you are up to. Just be careful. :-) jrc

Hi John, I don't know what you just said but it sounds a lot more impressive to me than what I think I'm up to : ) I will take care -thank you.

Georgine,

" ... they belong to space-time."

Words have gotten so cheap in physics since Einstein's successful revolution based upon no empirical support! There has never been a variable in a physics equation that directly represents the universal property of time nor the universal property of space. Relativists and you now are putting a '-' into physics for no reason other than theoretical preference. Your meaning of space-time is not the meaning put forward by Relativity. Both are wrong. Relativity theory pretends that the 'l' in physics equations and the 't' in physics equations represent space and time. This has never been the case. You argue that what we observe as Relativity effects are due to variations in the arrival of light. I repeat that: The empirically observed physical effects called length-contraction and time-dilation are predicted to exhibit the same result whether an object is moving toward an observer or away from an observer.

Words in theoretical physics have gotten cheap. The word definition has moved from its mathematical dependence, that existed up until the 1960's or so, to layperson type guesses, opinions, or escapism when physicists' refuse to acknowledge that which they do not know about the foundations of physics.

The circumstance that prompts this message has to do with the word 'proof'. Rather than admit that their support for their theories is insufficient and even fundamentally artificial, physicists reach out to mathematicians for help. While physicists, especially in textbooks, throw around answers, some of which lack empirical support, for what things are, when confronted by requests to take their stand formally, they excuse themselves by citing that proofs belong to mathematics and do not apply to physics. Of course they don't.

Mathematics is the study of shortcuts for counting. Their proofs consist of whether or not their shortcuts work to reproduce the intended count or counts. Physics uses empirical evidence that occurs in the real world of Earth and Sky. Rather than admit even that their feet are on firmly on the Earth, physicists, in their effort to avoid answering questions such as: What is mass?, escape from the real world of relying upon repeatable empirical evidence and cry out that mathematics is the place to go for proofs.

It is ironic that, in the largest part, theorists argue that empirically unsupportable theories such as Relativity Theory are fact, while refusing to go on the record that they have proof for what they say.

In physics, the word 'proof' does not apply to whether or not a dropped stone will fall down. Physicists would rather allow for the eventual stone that falls up rather than have to admit that they lack physics proofs for so much of, even in the fundamentals of, theoretical physics.

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.

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.