The vulnerability of science is indeed fundamental; we will see this in the next 2-3 exponential decades. Interesting contribution,Georgina ; I enjoyed reading it.
Universe soup and Sandcastles by Georgina Woodward
Dear Georgina,
You say: "Each differentiated part of the Object universe is relative in orientation and motion to all other parts". But wouldn't such 'differentiated part' remain entirely undifferentiated under such conditions? Isn't 'something' that is here and there, fast and slow, and in every possible orientation the exact definition of being undifferentiated? Aren't you tacitly importing the observer (the scientist) into your Object universe from where everything get started?
And if so, wouldn't your Object universe become dark and void if that which the observer brings to that universe is withdrawn from it? But you say: "Something rather than nothing, existence rather than void is a foundational necessity." It was Leibniz who had asked: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and it was Hegel who gave the answer: "Pure Being and pure nothing are the same". The 'innocent' state of the universe you have tried to depict on its behalf, which is 'pure Being and pure nothingness' is not depictable, because it is purely phenomenal, i.e. missing the reflective (scientific) level. I tend to think of us as being inherently bilingual: we're done with 'phenomenal' language at the age of four or so, but it takes us the rest of our lives to learn/criticize/understand reflective-scientific language.
Heinrich
Georgina
Yes, time is fundamental. However, I regard ether as the carrier of electromagnetic waves as more fundamental than the radiation, which i regard as a behavior of the ether. Space is also fundamental (but not spacetime).
Thanks for an interesting article.
Regards from ____________________ John-Erik
Georgina,
Love your statement "What is fundamental to science is the examination and testing of hypotheses, theories and methods". You point the arrow right back at the people writing about their ideas. We are indeed involved in a "survival of the fittest" environment that exposes us as competitors for cultural or scientific influence. You are a little more optimistic than I that any progress is being made. Phillip Gibbs wrote about the relative nature of ideas. It kind of bothered me because it may be accurate.... no truth just truth seekers. The second part of your statement "testing of hypotheses, theories and methods" is sometimes missing in papers that present complex math but contain no data comparisons. It doesn't show and of course no one will read references, but I worked a year reducing 2016 Particle Data Group Meson and Baryon data.
Well presented, interesting paper. Thanks for your complex thoughts.
Hi Heinrich, thank you for reading and the questions.
The objects of the Object universe are not differentiated by observations but by their being/happening differently from the undifferentiated.That difference does not have to be observed to exist/happen. The configuration of objects, and its change,is independent of observation. In contrast: Measurable variables are relational and not sole properties of the objects. They relate to the orientation, motion, and location of another object that might be considered. For example, rotation of an object is not clockwise or anticlockwise as such a singular attribute requires the location from which the determination of direction was chosen. Without the 'relative to' reference object, the object of interest does not have a singular orientation of rotation. Tying that in with QM, it could be said that unobserved it is in a superposition of both states. Until the way in which it will be looked at is applied and a singular state outcome is recorded. Which is not now the state of the 'Object reality' but a limited fixed state 'Image reality', a product of observation. What has happened corresponds to decoherence in QM.
The Object universe itself might be said to be dark, as in un-seeable. The illuminated objects we see are visual products of the sensory system or device used to observe them. The illumination is due to light intensity (quantity of photons) being processed into brightness of the image. Not being seen is not the same as not being there, as you will know from stubbing your toe in the dark. It is not the same as void or nothingness.
I hope I have explained how the independent state of existence or being/happening fits into physics as the missing ingredient that can make sense of the physics of the unseen at the smallest scales of investigation. It is not an immature model. Kind regards Georgina
Hi John-Erik,
There is no empty space or void in the Object universe but it is filled with existence and that which is not differentiated into other kinds of existence remains as it is. It is the base of the soup, it is fundamental. It, the undifferentiated existence, acts as medium for electromagnetic waves and host to all kinds of fields. It provides no information about its existence (other than evidence provided by the former aforementioned phenomena and their interactions, such as curvature of light rays in a gravitational field), and so it is not a part of the 'image realities' produced by observation, or of Relativity. I have not used a name with a history because I would not like all kinds of associations with the name imported into the explanation I am presenting and then have to argue about them.
After the question 'what is fundamental' comes the next question 'fundamental to what?' With regard to the fundamental nature of EM. Whereas the undifferentiated medium is fundamental in the Object universe, EM is fundamental to the construction of visual products of organisms and devices. Which are formed from information obtained from the EM signals, not from the foundational Material universe (the source objects that emit or reflect EM). This is relevant to Relativity, non simultaneity of events, the temporal paradoxes and astronomy.
Kind regards Georgina
Hi Gene, thanks for reading and your comments.
It is problematic for science, as there is no kudos for 'not like that' findings or papers rejected. Success is measured by papers published and citations of them. Yet the testing and rejection (done right) is of great importance for progress and credibility of science. I am annoyed by the popular press reporting findings that are in short time countered by contradictory findings. It shows a rush for publication that harms the credibility of science as a whole. I don't think there is the same 'test it till it breaks' ethos that engineers and computer game developers share.
After a computer game development 'jam' the competitors play each others games and 'try to break them'. Rather than that being a bad thing it allows un-thought of ways of testing to be used. Uncovering issues and providing "I never knew it would do that" moments. Allowing the game to be fixed. Playing the 'can I break it game' is fun and the broken game is not a failure but a potentially better game. That kind of testing could be replicated in science by independent teams collaboratively testing each others products. This runs counter to a culture of secrecy to protect potentially valuable intellectual property and priority, affecting professional scientists. Peer review is perhaps intended as a similar kind of quality testing but the ethos is different it seems.The process is not 'lets all have fun seeing if we can break each other's products' in the spirit of mutual helpfulness; but something else. FQXi competitions get closer, but have also been affected by ulterior motives that are not about the science, or the presentation, itself.
Kind regards Georgina
Georgina,
For me, this was a much more readable text than your previous essays. It is not pedantic. You identify the passage of time as fundamental rather then time itself. That is an interesting perspective that eliminates some of the other questions and problems.
You suggest that there is a single base that is used to brew our universe full of "stone soup". That is probably the simplest hypothesis. The aetherists will argue that everything is made of aether. I will suggest that you need something and nothing. That will make the informationists happy. You even suggest there is a scalar dimension .....
You pay homage to the empirical testing of hypotheses. I appreciate that:-)
And you end by noting that vulnerability is fundamental. That is interesting. It certainly works with the passage of time to create a dynamic universe.
All in all a good essay.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Hi Gary, thank you for your feedback. With regard to something or nothing. I'd like to have my cake and eat it. I will suggest that there is ubiquitous existence in the Object universe, no voids completely empty of it. While accepting that there can be positive and negative results of detection (of objects or phenomena) A photoreceptor cell,for example , has a range of frequency sensitivity and an intensity threshold required for response. No response is not that there is nothing arriving at the cell but it is either outside of the frequency sensitivity range or below threshold intensity. This idea is helpful for making sense of the double slit and half silvered mirror experiments.
An electron or photon is detected taking just one path or slit.That does not mean nothing went through the other. Some sub photon or sub electron disturbance associated with the particle, which is undetectable (sub information) could pass through the other path or slit and then interfere with that part of the associated disturbance that has traveled with the electron or photon. Consider also picking up radio signals. Not receiving a signal of interest is a nul result but it does not mean that no waves are arriving at the receiver instrument.There are the multitude of waves that are potential white noise and possibly other signals not of interest. So nothing is what is generated by a threshold not being met or being outside of the range of attention or responsiveness, rather than physical nothingness.
I am thinking of testing of all kinds.( See reply to Gene.) Including examination of methodology and reasoning and mathematics, experiment and replication, statistical significance, alternative hypotheses that would fit the same results, prior contradictory findings, additional facts not included or considered...It would depend upon what is being tested.You get the idea. Kind regards Georgina
Being pedantic : ) ,The zero or void or hole or nothing is 'generated 'by nothing happening in response rather than there being nothing there.As to generate something sounds like activity rather than inactivity, to be clear it would have been better if I had said in my preceding reply- So nothing is a consequence of a threshold not being met or being outside of the range of attention or responsiveness, rather than physical nothingness. The idea is the nothing is part of the constructed representation, rather than there being actual nothingness in the source reality.
Georgina,
Your training in life sciences is serving you well. So, rather than there being something and nothing, you think there is something and a scalar dimension that allows for a spatial distribution of the something. And what we perceive as nothing is simply too little for our perception. This is very believable to me and might even fit in with the uncertainty principle. But how do you test for something that is below your measurement threshold? That will be the challenge you face.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Dear Georgina,
You wrote: "Employing Ockham's razor, it is better to assume there is only one kind of base existence from which all other differentiated kinds of existence are formed rather than multiple kinds of base. Supported by the apparent conversion of particles into other kinds of particle during certain kinds of interactions. Which would not be possible if they were ultimately constituted from different foundational types of existence."
Only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed. Finite humanly contrived misinformation concerning the activity of INVISIBLE particles has nothing to do with reality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Georgina,
as answer to your post on my thread:
It was only three month ago that I thought "Inflation is a crazy idea".
But I was not able to explain my perception that a "whole" reality can emerge from a point where there is no space and time, so...in order to try I used this "crazy" idea, which does not mean tht my own idea was also crazy. I only used it because scientists seem to accept it and find it a good explanation. My use of it is NOT the explanation of the HOW but just using an IMAGE. In fact the emergence of other dimensions like time and space out of what we are experiencing as NOTHING is difficult to understand.
I could also have explained it in this way : When we are observing our universe from far outside it will become a point, inthis point EVERYTHING is SIMULTANEOUSLY happening for this outside agent. In this exemple we are however still in a spacelike surrounding and having a time like experience, we are NOT OUTSIDE REALITY, we are still inside our Subjective Simultaneity Sphere. If we could place ourselves outside of our reality (through consciousness) it would be possible to become conscious of the Total Simultaneity of the POINT from where realitie are emerging.
I try to describe this point that is time and spaceless (for us) as ALL and Nothing together. Nothing means NO MEANING (for us), but it can represent MEANING for other forms of consciousness...From our perspective however "THE INITIATIVE" comes from this for our understanding "NOTHING".
I hope I could explain some things you asked
and will also read your essay.
best regards
Wilhelmus
Georgina
Thanks for this answer. We seems to agree on most points.
Good luck
John-Erik
Thank you for reading what I have written Joe.
Hi Gary, thanks for your reply. I'm proposing that, existence is ubiquitous and at all scales. The 'base' is that existence that is not differentiated into other forms of existence, and is host for numerous phenomena. Even there, at the sub atomic scale, there is an environment.
There are a few reasons for not detecting a particular phenomenon; it is undetectable with current technology, either falling below the sensitivity of the instruments or it falls outside of the range of operation, or it of an unknown kind for which detection capability does not yet exist or it just isn't being sought with sufficient determination (perhaps having no assumption of its being there to be found). Bringing me to other reason for not finding it; The notion that there is no environment at that scale but void. (Which I think is incorrect.) The interference pattern is being formed by something going through the slit (or taking the other path in the silvered mirror experiments.)
We know from the macroscopic scale that when objects move they have associated effects. Such as magnetic and electric fields, gravitational fields, thermal radiation, pressure waves ( potential sensory data for the sense of sound), shedding of chemicals (that are potential sensory data for the sense of smell). They are not stealthy but can be located by the effects associated with them.(Snakes can detect prey from the thermal radiation emitted. Sharks and electric eels can detect prey using the electric field.) Another reason for not finding anything is if at the very small scale of particles they are utterly stealthy, having no effect other than their being. Which is possible but I think unlikely since, like the no environment notion, it does not fit with the known evidence that something is going through the slit or taking the other path.
A ubiquitous existence forming an environment for the particles differentiated from it, combined with imperfect stealth of those particles enables a non mystical, physical explanation of what is happening.
The tests will not be for a below threshold something. It will be first to try to find out in what way the objects/phenomena are affecting their environment. I think the effect can be amplified using more of the objects or greater intensity of the phenomenon causing the environmental effect. Helping it's detection, if it is something we have the means to detect. Starting with what is known first, such as the aforementioned fields, and eliminating them in turn. -And then thinking outside of the box.
Kind regards Georgina
Universe soup? More like word soup - what is the point of all this and how does it advance Science?
Most of the 'essay' is just lists of unrelated bullet points with no clear direction or thesis that I could discern. Apart from that, a great essay...
Declan, I'm sorry it isn't your cup of tea! The final section 'Sandcastles and science' is about the practice of science and how it is a good that hypotheses and methods are disproven or discredited, however well regarded, as finding 'it's not like that','doesn't happen like that 'and 'can't be found like that' is certain advance in knowledge. In my reply to Gene, (you might like to read it), I have written about the value of collaborative testing and evaluation in a spirit of mutual helpfulness to enable products to be improved. Feedback in my experience is really useful but very hard to come by.
I have put a paper in the reference section under background "Woodward , G., Uni-Temporalism, the Relation of Human Beings to Time and the 'future' of Time in Physics,(2016), vixra.org" if you are interested in finding out where some of the idea have come from.
The essay is broken into sections dealing with different fundamentals. The first part deals with the foundations needed for fundamental foundational, uni-temporal time. The next is electromagnetism which is fundamental to observation and perception. The next is the fundamental forces, and finally what I consider fundamental to science.
The base of the soup, existence rather than nothingness: see my replies to Gary. As host to all of the fundamental forces it allows their unification.
The list of differences between the seen and the materially existent is to emphasize that physics is dealing with two different facets of the universe. Actualized existence and material things, and products of signal receipt and information processing. That is not trivial but the necessary realization for understanding the temporal paradoxes as the result of a category error.
Foundational passage of time is the time needed by QM. The time that emerges from signal receipt gives non simultaneity of events. The two kinds of time allow QM and Relativity to be non contradictory as they are not about the same facets of physics happening in the universe.
The part about measurables being relational rather than sole properties of the entity of interest is important for understanding QM, providing a 'picture of superposition of the unseen/unmeasured','picture of evolution of a variable profile over time and reduction to a limited fixed state outcome when a limiting viewpoint or protocol is applied. Providing a 'what's going on'at what physicists call 'wavefunction collapse' or 'decoherence'.It discounts Many worlds post outcome in favour of many alternative possible measurements prior to the limiting mental consideration and physical treatment of the entity of interest.
I have tried to explain the difference between the universe experienced and the universe as it is, and how it can be conceptualized despite our being unable to have all viewpoints from all relations simultaneously.That relates back to the beginning where I mention the difference between human and universe centered views, there was also a little comment about not mistaking consequences for causes , which was pertaining to the anthropic principle.
The Terry Pratchett quotes were for entertainment but I hope their relevance can be seen too. Georgina
Georgina,
A very nice essay with argument which you probably already know I'm in wide general agreement with. I'm pleased you found fermions important, and also that you briefly address QM. But I suggest a few things need more examination.
1. 'Wavefunction'. You agree complex EM 'waves' yet how do we describe those characteristics, x,y,z, axis energy, wavelength etc. without a 'formula' to cover all oscillations found? I DO agree the 'wavefunction' and it's transforms on interactions are misunderstood and muddy as bathwater, but surely if the baby goes too we'd have to re-invent one?
2. You identify the ambient frame and that relative 'observer/detector' velocity affects 'colour'. But isn't it more fundamental to identify wavelength 'lambda' after interaction as triggering the colour receptors, then also valid for instruments and ALL EM signals? Then Doppler shifts also remain consistent physics. (In astrophysics we know lambda MUST be the fundamental value)
3. You identify 'change' which I agree, but why not reduce further to just 'motion'. All change is from motion, and no motion means nothing to change! (boring as you say!)
4. QM. First well done, I like & agree your description. But you skip the issue that it's exactly that description that Bells 'Theorem' Inequalities irrefutably disprove! (using QM's assumptions) i.e. it's the 'EPR paradox'; if it's just about chosen interaction angles then Alice can change Bob's result instantly at a million miles away! THAT has always been the problem, never resolved, so most say you're wrong & natures weird!
However good news is at hand to finally prove your model correct. It won't be accepted of course, it'll be ignored & screamed at, but it's now irrefutable by repeatable experiment. The massive importance of Declan Trail's paper (see my comment to yours) is that his maths code also almost precisely matches the experimental result. You can repeat the experiment yourself for under £200 (see my photo's and end notes). It's all about fermions. It's genuine paradigm changing stuff!
I look forward to chatting further on that and the above queries.
Very Best
Peter
Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.
1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. All of the measurables are indefinite prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it's OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.
2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.
4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition of relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.
We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. Kind regards Georgina