• [deleted]

  • Post #115

Steve,

by the same reasoning, two identical parent radio-isotopes are created in the furnace of an exploding old star billions of years ago. One is captured by the gravitational proximity of a nearby star and its "spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life. The other is ejected on a diverging trajectory from gravitational proximity into interplanetary, or even intergalactic space, and its spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases. So how did the current census of radio-isotopes on earth survive to become part of the accretion disc of this generation solar system, in the first place?

The Pu238 RTGs that power the Voyager twins, have exceeded their design working life as engineered in the earth's gravitational domain, by nearly a factor of 3. If it were simply gravitational effect of rate of response, not a change in the speed of time by proximity, Voyager 2 would have gone black long before it crossed out of the solar system. Instead it continued operational power level production for much longer duration of signal reception in the proximal speed of earth time. GPS arguments can be ambiguous on the matter, but not deep space radiological decay rates which do not calculate as suffering any measurable change. That argues strongly that time is local to particulate matter, and globally is a compendium of a multitude of quantum-times, like a vast Fourier Transform. jrc

Hi Jrc

Thank you for the message

There are differences in our terminology, and I wonder how different our perspectives might be. I'll have to read your essay, and see if I can tune into your method of thought. You have posed me a question I am not aware of specific parameters, like the half life of radio-isotope and in relevance to solar-system formation. Your radio-isotopes likened to windup clocks with variable expiry dates, dependent on relative gravitational environments and velocities.

You say

"spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life."

and

"spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases."

These expressions are quite different to mine "tense, relax, brake". The parameters I specify define force, to make comparative of two clock springs relative positions. Those parameters are force over distance equate newtons. I coin a term "force dilation" which is effectively expressed as newtons.

You present a real world example, voyager twins. I will have another read of this in the morning. See if I can relate

Steve

Steve,

I was actually presenting a rationale in the first paragraph that follows yours; ie, that gravitational fields effect response rates in a classic Newtonian time frame. And pose the question of survival of radioisotopes across the billions of years in extremely low gravitational environs.

The second paragraph briefly introduces the findings by NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains. (Keeping in mind that though much is known about radioactivity, there is still no hypothesis as to why some elements are radioactive.) And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally, which was like a surprise bonus to mission engineers.

I do not want to detract from Ed's long efforts, and agree with much of his field theoretical thinking. But GR is not negated entirely by the arguments of gravitational field effect alone. jrc

Edwin,

Your essay format of a posthumous discussion between geniuses is delightful. I used such a format in describing time as a quintessential, existential precondition on page 5 of the Reference to my essay.

I question whether or not the theories propounded by the 'geniuses' are mind-dependent and, if so, cannot be verified objectively.

While I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your mathematics, your rationale is clear and persuasive. Technical expressions do tend to broaden the definition of the evaluation criterion that essays should be 'non-specialist', but I can live with that.

I have no difficulty in prefacing The Nature of Time with the term 'Fundamental', but this raises the question as to whether any fundamental concept necessarily stands in precedence to Time.

It is reasonable to assume that Time and Existence are coincidentally dependent insofar as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You have elected one and I the other.

Good luck. I shall look for your name amongst the high rankers.

Gary.

    Dear Colin Walker,

    Having re-read your essay I find it chock full of interesting things. I briefly looked at "the river model of black holes", and it seems somewhat a generalization of Hertz's idea in that it adds bivectors for rotation, whereas Hertz assumed only a velocity vector representing flow through the local ether. I find it interesting that the escape velocity (of the 'river') flattens space, although I've not had time to study Gullstrand and Painleve's work. Hamilton and Lisle mention "the picture of space falling like a river into a black hole may seem discomfortingly concrete." It seems to bear resemblance to Cahill's dynamical 3-space, and to an FQXi essay about three years ago. I grant that the math seems to work, but I have trouble visualizing the physical reality of the process, especially for many body problems. Perhaps I'm too comfortable with Faraday type 'field lines of force'. The extension of Hertz's ideas to gravity are represented in my equations (5). This is a flat space model that, when iterated, yields the full Einstein field equations.

    Thanks again for an interesting paper and for your remarks on my essay.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Priyanka Giri,

    Thank you for commenting on my essay. I've now read your essay. You conclude that "our mind is bound by what it accepts as correct." In your essay you discuss "mind concludes things classically but works quantum mechanically." That may or may not be correct. You refer to 'no object traveling at the speed of light', and then ask about entanglement. You state that space-time has been the most basic element in our universe. That may or may not be correct. Similarly, the discussion of the direction of time, and the measurement of time. Also that quanta of the inflaton field are as large as the observable universe; and the information paradox of black holes. Even the decoherence of quantum superposition, singularities, infinite gravity, Schrödinger's cat and EPR paradox.

    So as you say, we cannot explain all the phenomenon was certainty. My belief is that many of these problems arise from false assumptions. My essay attacked one key false assumption, the idea that the speed of light can be attached to every moving object.

    I think you've established your point well in your essay, and I wish you luck in your career and in this contest.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear George,

    Thank you for your kind comment. I am not sure that criticism here can change nothing. Your essay is very well written and succinctly describes the problem. Many other essays do likewise. These essays are read by hundreds of people, which may not sound like much, but they are people who are competent to varying degrees and who tend to have open minds.

    I've observed over a number of FQXi contests that many authors who attack specific aspects of physics noticeably improve their arguments as time goes by. Part of this is probably due to having another year to hone their ideas, but I'm sure part of it derives from feedback on their essays.

    There seem to be a number of authors who feel that the current state of physics is a problem, and the problem may be getting worse. It seems that this situation cannot go on indefinitely, and things may loosen up and allow a new idea or two to enter the field. We can hope!

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Gary Valentine Hansen,

    Thanks for your kind remarks and thanks for reading. I do think we are in more agreement than your comment implies. You conclude that space can hardly qualify as the most fundamental. Then you question energy. You suggest either relativity or quantum theory will have to give in order to achieve a resolution. Finally you say above that time and existence are coincidently dependent as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You say I have selected one and you the other.

    But I do not claim in my essay that time is the 'most' fundamental phenomenon. What I do is address the fundamental nature of time which has been confused since Einstein said 'simultaneity is relative'. Instead, I believe that a primordial field had do exist before time and space have any meaning.

    Thanks again for your comments.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    jrc

    You have raised some questions and I don't object at all. However I will mention that you have changed the terms and selected different scenarios, rather than arguing within specific terms raised in the essay, or my comments about clock springs.

    And I am having trouble understanding your comments and questions. I cant iron out what appear to be contredictions. The misunderstanding could be entirely my fault. The confusion could easily be mine. These conversations can be notoriously tricky, and it's so common to see people attempting to communicate these subjects (SR GR) while not even approaching a common understanding. That's why I keep my considerations and arguments within reach of an observation and measure. A clock spring communicates definable values of force, while the hands communicate measure of time. I can point to the shaft that connects the clock spring to the hands, and show that the proportional motion of one is proportional to the other. This ascribes an equivalence between expressions of force and measures of time, that's justified by observation and measure. Therefore it is not theoretical. And it is a much simpler system with less prospects for hidden variables than isotope radio active decays, which are little understood complex behaviours of complex systems.

    I think a fair challenge to my rationale would be better directed towards that to which I refer. Conversation can benefit from being centred upon an observation, measure. Rather than extrapolated terms and scenarios. Will you join me in a discussion about clock springs? If you will then perhaps we should attend my thread, if and when my essay is live, or your essay thread. Rather than commandeering Edwin's.

    Steve

    Steve,

    Clock springs I would treat as Edwin has, that they are a measure of energy of oscillations. And I had introduced radiological decay because Edwin's own comments contend that his model is compatible with GR, and much is. But the clock in GPS is the regular oscillation of Cesium atoms which increase to translate to 48,000 nanoseconds per day faster at orbital altitude then on Earth. So if gravtitational field effect allows that atomic frequency to increase, then it should also have the same predictable effect on the frequency of half-lives. So I think Edwin is on a right track and enjoyed his artistic license, but also agree with Philip Gibbs comments. Above all, that the good Dr. Klingman shows respect for the dignity of others and will always have mine. I've also done (what I felt was reasonably successful) modeling of this sort in a Cartesian measurement scheme, and find a lot of agreement with Ed's concept of real, physical field interaction, and the geodesics of GR being akin to worldlines of equilibrium if a field is reintroduced into the barebones, co-ordinate free geometrics.

    I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc

    Hi Edwin. The name 'river model' is rather fanciful. I also have great difficulty visualizing space moving into matter - it flows in but not out? A better explanation might be that it is some sort of wave motion that propagates through space. I am thinking of something like the moving pattern on a cuttlefish that sweeps over it in waves. The surface of the cuttlefish is not moving, but the pattern gives an illusion of motion. For waves of force, instead of lines of force, there would have to be some coupling between matter and waves, but also between waves to promote coherence.

    My visualization of standing waves comes from experiencing them too close for comfort. I was fishing in a canoe with a friend at the northeast corner of the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver. The tide was strong, a line got caught in the electric motor, and we were swept through rapids to the east side of the bridge. Having survived the rapids, we were being carried toward a field of standing waves being reflected off the shoreline looking like rows of jaws. I was surprised and terrified by the sight, and have wondered ever since whether the waves might act as trap. It is a long way to gravity from there, but the physical analogy of waves seems better than a river.

    Thanks for pointing out your previous essay, and Cahill's work. Interesting how experiments (and theory) such as MM can benefit from reanalysis. Cheers, Colin

    Colin,

    The essay I mentioned was not mine. It was written by a medical doctor who, I believe, only participated in one contest. I can't recall his name, or the title of his essay, but I do recall that his was "a river model" and that it focused on escape velocity. If I recall any more, I'll let you know. Edwin Eugene Klingman

    jrc

    Hay good news. I read through your messages again and I understand your following points.

    NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains.

    "And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally".

    On first reading, these two statements sounded contradictory. But I understand how one leads to the other now. But I admitted it was probably my fault, so all good.

    "real, physical field interaction"

    Yes!

    "I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc "

    and yes again!!

    I find it fascinating/riveting that you are playing with the term "deceleration of light". Deceleration and acceleration are equivalent terms. Both correspond to expression of energy/force. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this you suggest as the mechanism for mass?

    In my essay which will hopefully be accepted, I refer to this association you mention. I refer to it in terms of being an association between photons and gluons, whereby their expressions of force are correlated via magnitude. Velocity of photon C, and gluon C2. Deceleration of photon C to derive value of mass C2, is a very appealing notion.

    If deceleration of light is the mechanism that gives mass, then you will appreciate how a variant C would act to give variant mass. Mass would be proportional to change of velocity. Do you hold constant C as sacred? Are we speaking the same language?

    I believe my term "force dilation" is the same concept to which Edwin refers, "energy of oscillations" but I define it as value of force.

    Edwin recently quoted Richard Feynman as saying "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force".

    A clocks increased oscillation in orbit constitutes an acceleration. Edwin has referred to it in terms of increased "energy", terms of energy are interchangeable with "force".

    I believe the breakthrough occurs when atomic oscillations currently interpreted as "time dilation" are associated with variant atomic energy/force. Atomic energy/force extends to variant mass. It's usefulness applies to, Atomic energy/mass scales dependant on gravities square law proximity to matter. This consideration of variant mass extends to "proximity of stars to each other in galaxies". Average distance between stars in galaxies, increases by the square of distance from galaxy centre.

    It will sound fanciful to most, but it should be considered a curiosity that, if a baryon is considered to increase its mass proportionate to distance from galaxy centre, "dependent upon dilated proximity of stars to each other", then it does place mass where it needs to be to predict anomalous galaxy rotation velocity. An ideal fit.

    Steve

    Hi Edwin, it seems that many beer-mats and napkins later they left without agreement but at least had not come to blows. I don't think Einstein would have enjoyed the meeting.

    We are, it appears, in agreement about there being no empty space.

    You include some history but I think the most important background, which you do not point out, was that this development of Special Relativity was happening at a time when co-ordination of clock time at different places was becoming necessary for the successful running of railway timetables. After early time signal sending by pneumatic tubes, electric signals were used. It is easy to understand that the time signal is something different from passage of time. Just as a time signal can be sent and received, a light signal can be transmitted and received. The time signal is processed into a clock time and the light signal can be processed into an image. When the signal is processed is when the image is seen, not when the event it pertains to happened.

    You know from your own experience of thunder storms and Doppler effect of a moving siren, that the observer's relation to the sensory stimuli affects the experience. Two observers different distances for the storm experience the thunder and lightning differently, there isn't simultaneity of the events, for them. The different time lines pertain to the different experiences. The observers are experiencing the universe differently. Those experiences are different from what is actually happening in external reality simultaneously with the 'present' experience. It is important to separate what appears to be Now from uni-temporal Now. Due to the way in which the senses work there is a causal order: production of potential sensory information, transmission, receipt, processing, experience. Thus present and uni-temporal Now can not be the same.

    I can tell a lot of thought and effort has gone in to crafting your essay. It is well written. No disrespect is intended. Georgina

      Dear Georgina,

      Thanks for reading and commenting. You are of course correct about the contemporary history of signal timing and synchronization of clocks. One of my more informed adversaries always wants to formulate relativity problems in terms of clocks in space at every point in each inertial frame. This is based on the view that clocks measure time perfectly, and can be synchronized perfectly, then moved with no effects.

      A key problem is that none of the clocks, circa 1900, could measure any relativistic effects. Not until the advent of atomic clocks could one test relativity, and then the results depend on interpretation of what clocks are doing: measuring a moving time dimension or measuring the cyclic energy of a moving atom, etc.

      When you speak of observer's experience of time, this vastly complicates the "clocks" involved, and, while this is relevant to our perception, it's difficult to rigorously relate this to relativity.

      Thank you for your positive remarks. Good luck in the contest.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Diogenes,

      Your essay begins by acknowledging the need for a conceptual basis and the basic or 'substantial' stuff from which stems everything that exists. The conceptual basis is 'mental structure' for imaging and image correlation entailing information-based limitations of finite channels and noise. From these derive our concepts of space, time, mass, and distance, all sensor based. The ontological basis of such is inherently unknown, but sensed correlations allow us to build up mental structures which we project onto reality. Since pre-existing space devoid of content seems unlikely to exist, the essential stuff entails space which leads to space and time, wherein events occur. You conclude that space cannot be continuous. My own concept is that the 'essential stuff' or field is a continuum. You note that the concept of time currently used in science is subjective. Having read my essay you know that I identify time as universal simultaneity.

      You discuss mass in terms of inertia, then define the most basic form of matter as 'energy', with self-consistent dynamic structure. This seems compatible with an energy-time conjugation interpretation that is basic to the measurement of time.

      Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in this contest.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin, the content of each observers reference frame, that which is deemed to be simultaneous, must necessarily be the product of processing of received sensory input. The content of the reference frames of organisms or devices can not in reality be the externally existing matter (outside of, and distant from the observer), independent of the function of observer's sensory systems, or function of the sensing device. As that can not be seen /has not been detected. The different time dimensions you mention are pertaining to the space-time generated by the observers.

      Edwin:

      I do not believe you've made much fundamental progress in the nature of time since, In my opinion, without properly including the subjective aspect of the observer and his relationship to our theories we will continue to be stuck in an old paradigm. However your critique of Einstein and emphasis on the great body of work based more on classical thinking is excellent and deserves to be praised since we must dislodge the constraints he his bigger than life reputation has trapped us in to make progress. I hope you win and will do my part to make that happen

      Wolfgang Baer

      Dear Edwin

      I just took pleasure in bumping your score up another point.

      I hope you will take the time to view my essay please? Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin.

      And I also hope we will have occasion to discuss a theme common of both our works. That considerations which are traditionally delegated to times process, are better served as considerations of energy or force. Specifically, that relative motion and gravitational environments issue effects as a modulation of atomic energy or force. I understand my Darwinian scope will seam an unjustified leap to you, and I'm happy to bench that subject while we might discuss modulated atomic energy, and the theme I have already put to you regarding modulated Baryon mass and its prospect for predicting galaxy rotation velocity. Simply by issuing a modulated Baryon mass based on square law proximity of matter. Specifically, the proximity of stars to each other in galaxies. What did you make of this assertion please?

      Galaxies do rotate as though their mass density is constant from middle to edge. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy center. Interesting symmetry to reflect on, dont you agree?

      Congratulations on a great essay. My favorite for a placing two years running.

      Steven Andresen

        Ed,

        Good to see your rating having tough, regardless of all other disagreements about time it does mean that there is a growing realism than the hitherto strictly Quantum Mechanical abstraction that Time emerges from pure random events piling up in a bell curve. jrc