Universe soup and Sandcastles by Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward

Correction I should have said 4. I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption ...

There is an underlying notion that the outcome singular fixed states or values exist already, like the colour or pattern of socks, rather than coming into 'being' when the viewpoint or limiting procedure is applied.

The elephant and blind men analogy is rather overused but nevertheless: singular limited state trunk/hose only exists in isolation when a singular limited 'viewpoint' (I.e. relative to this man") is applied. Same for singular state leg/pillar, singular state ear/fan and singular state tail/rope. Prior to those measurements the elephant unseen has the potential to be measured as any of those states. Yet isn't any of those isolated 'measurement outcome' states. Elephant source un-felt is indefinite as far as the would observers are concerned. There are of course many other potential 'feel-points' that could be taken. So by mentally limiting the number of observers to the traditional ones the possible outcome states have already been mentally reduced.

I have some papers on viXra that give some thoughts on quantum physics, variables and measurement, and the effect of different perspectives of the universe.

Is Quantum Physics Really Strange? viXra:1708.0235 ,The Map is not the Territory viXra:1708.0268 , and The Frog and the Swarm of Bees, Different Views of the Universe viXra:1801.0098

Which are also, I suppose, relevant background to the essay but I didn't think it was necessary to list all papers containing some relevant idea. If you are interested in where the expressed viewpoints are coming from you could have a read/skim of them. Georgina

Lawrence Crowell

It has taken me until now to get to this. My time is a bit chopped up these days. I would say that if I had to parse what you write it is that time and causality is defined in a local sense. You say things occur as a part relative to other parts, which in a way is how gauge theory and general relativity are constructed. A local region has some kinematics of spacetime or of a field, and how that local region meshes with other regions determines dynamics.

A part of what I maintain, which is an aspect of my essay, is that local and nonlocal principles are dual. This is from how I treat the duality between bulk gravity in and anti-de Sitter space and the field theory on its conformal boundary.

Cheers LC

Georgina Woodward

Hi Lawrence, thank you for taking a look. The proposition in the essay is that:"Foundational passage of time is about the pattern of existence, of differentiated parts and about the change. The happening rather than just the static being of the pattern of existence."

I wrote, "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating. The pattern is always unitary and uni-temporal. The pattern changes more rapidly at the smaller scales but always remains part of a singular pattern of existence. It all remains together, temporally speaking. The rate of change of the pattern in different places is not foundational time passing at different rates. It is the entire pattern, the entirety of existence, that is a time. There is no other time to be at. "

Meaning, a time is the configuration or pattern of the whole of existence simultaneously. There is no past or future but only that extant version. Foundational passage of time is simultaneous change of the entire pattern. (Spacetime was put in the disregarded heap.)

People use timing to compare change. It is really comparison of alteration of one part of the pattern of existence against another. The foundational Object universe is uni-temporal. Causality is local but foundational time is universal.

Non simultaneity of events stems from differences in signal receipt;and pertains to the products of processing. Relativity has been formulated upon a category error that does not distinguish between material objects and products of signal receipt and processing. Trying to highlight the important difference between the categories was the reason for the extensive list in the essay of differences between seen things and objects as they are. Kind regards Georgina

pjackson

Georgina. Thanks. Interesting. But consider;

1. If we have >2 identical detectors or eyes at rest side by side in an ambient medium they find the SAME from ALL signals. If one is different, rotated, moved or in any relative motion, THEN, we agree, finding always differ. To me the evidence is clear, 'observer dependence', but does it also agree with the signal having NO measurables pre-interaction!? (does it help to think 'wavefront' not requantized 'particle' PRE interaction).

2. You say; "I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it." Sorry I wasn't inferring YOU did, I was identifying it's SR that must infer that - as it ignores 1 above. But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable. On lens interaction we can't compute any 'frequency' until we sent the revised signal (& lambda) up our optic nerve/cable to our processor to calculate against time! Can 'frequency' then be a more fundamental property? Astrophysics only makes any sense by using lambda.

3. : "Motion involves questions of position and location (same thing) and distance." I see your quest for simplicity, but all 'motion' really needs is some "relative velocity" of anything i.e. WITH some ambient medium or other body. If none exists then consider; NOTHING exists! Is it not worth considering that really ALL 'energy' is kinetic, i.e. motion based. Kinetic just means linear as opposed to rotational. What else is there? Even 'potential' energy only comes to exist once motion starts.

4.; "I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time". Absolutely NOT! QM can't use space-time. One of the main chasms with Relativity is QM's simple 'absolute' time! Yes, I agree something has to give, but 1. above shows it's NOT 'measurables'. NASA & the ISS couldn't communicate with probes if it were! A simpler answer is known to science; wavefronts (& 'particles') have freedom on all 3 (x,y,z,) axis and use it; (thus elliptical polarity etc.) So states vary in all cases except 'side by side', as found. Does that make sense to you?

So just a couple of key queries. But of course scoring is not about agreement or veracity so no points lost by theory!

Very Best

Peter

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Georgina,

Very beautiful essay. I think it's an important direction you choose, the difference between what is fundamental for humans vs for the universe. And I like how you sprinkled your writing with very illustrative references to Terry Pratchet :)

Good luck with the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Georgina Woodward

Thank you Cristinel. I found far more great quotes from Terry Pratchett than I could use. I'll share this one. 'Discworld' has its own science.

"The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty, and bloody-mindedness.Thus it was the sun and moon orbited the Disc because they were persuaded not to fall down, but didn't actually fly away because of uncertainty. Charm allowed tress to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on." Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

It works!- and makes me smile.

Kind regards Georgiba

Georgina Woodward

Correction. "Charm allowed trees to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on." Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

Georgina Woodward

Peter I'll try to address your points

1. My proposition is that the measurables are relative and so the relative to what has to be established. Without that its state or value is indefinite. Does that mean the object or phenomenon does not have behaviour unless measured? No. But to say what it is comes with,"says who?',i.e. what perspective or limiting constraint was applied to obtain that singular value or state.

The measurements are not sole properties but involve relations. I think one argument against hidden variables is considering the measurement values or states belong to the entity of interest. Incorrectly assuming the (to be) observed object or phenomenon needs separate individual states to satisfy each different kind of measurement. Whereas it just needs its one unobserved behaviour. It isn't drawing the correct response out of its bag of answers when interrogated but its behaviour is being judged in a particular way.

Georgina Woodward

2. Special relativity involves different observer reference frames. The objects seen in a reference frame being distant from the observe must already be the products of processing of received EM signals. That's how vision works. Different observers receive the signals differently producing different products, they are not affecting external reality distant from them.

The lens is not the receiver, the light passes through, but photo-receptors absorb it. They have frequency range sensitivity. You wrote "But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable." Are you talking about spatial distance? Re. astrophysics making sense, did you see the appendix? The distance of objects in astrophysics is estimated using brightness of standard candles for comparison, which is intensity not wavelength or frequency.

Georgina Woodward

3. By 'position' I really meant 'orientation' in that reply. I have written in the essay "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating." All the aforementioned change is motion. That everything is in continual (absolute not measured) motion is a foundational tenet of the explanatory framework I have been working on for the last 10 years.)There is no bias against the term just a preference to use alternative vocabulary in some circumstances. A singular time is a pattern of relations between all of the constituents of the universe. A change to that pattern is a different time. I think that the word change works better to convey that whole re-arrangement rather than trying to convey an alteration involving motion, that is altering all of the relations between the constituents, Even though that is what is happening.

Georgina Woodward

4. I agree that wasn't well said.

Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.) Bell's inequality violation shows something has to give with Einstein's model. I have been saying that spacetime is not where the physics is happening. Spacetime is the seen product of signal processing. Where the physics is happening is in the kind of space I tried to describe in the essay and the time is foundational, sequential uni-temporal time of the kind needed by QM.

Anyway the wish list for defending spacetime is local realism (mind independence of measurables), locality (no faster than light communication), and counterfactual definiteness (equal reality of all unmeasured variables). In regard to 1, see reply to 1. above. Even though I am not talking about involvement of a mind I am emphasizing the non independence of the measured state or value as it is always relative. See also my reply Jan. 15, 2018 @ 00:38 GMT, the elephant analogy.

If the actual limited, fixed state variable, states or values do not exist in isolation prior to the act of extraction then neither do the counterfactual states or values that might have been obtained. That leaves the only remaining requirement no faster than light communication. It should, in regard to this be noted that what is seen or otherwise made known is the product of processing of received signals not the physics that is at the moment of seeing, or otherwise becoming aware, happening. Uni-temporal Now where the physics happens precedes the awareness of it. Which may make it seem in some experiments that things are happening faster than they should.

In conclusion Local realism and counterfactual definiteness out. Locality in, with the added point about awareness vs happening. I don't agree that non locality has to be accepted. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

I wrote "Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.)" It would have been more accurate to have said -'thinking it where physics is'.

Georgina Woodward

-And I give a possible solution to Olber's paradox.

Domenico Oricchio

Some interesting point of views.

The fundamental constituent like the mass of the fermions, but the massless bosons?

The change and the time connection is a deep connection, and it is interesting: so that the fundamental is the time, or the change; and you write of the fundamental forces, so that you have a heap of fundamental concepts, rather than a single principle; the last fundamental is the scientific methods: "time, mass, forces and methods".

The method of obtain knowledge is necessary in the scientific world, but I think that the mathematics also have some fundational property.

A good work.

Regards

Domenico

Georgina Woodward

Hi Domenico, thanks. I think the 'base'existence is differentiated into all the different kinds of existence. The fermions are one particular way the base can be different. I mentioned the fundamental forces are different ways in which the base medium is affected by matter. Photons are also alteration of the base medium but in another different way. Photons are singular disturbances from the change in energy level of an electron. In contrast a disturbance of the medium that is a gravitational field is a whole that is spatially distributed and the division into single particles that are not that whole doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Likewise the bosons that supposedly operate at sub atomic scale. I can think about what is going on as field or disturbance of the medium and division into particles doesn't make more sense. I think the HIggs boson is not a part of nature but an effect caused by the extreme conditions used to detect it, which caused the evidence of its existence. in nature the field isn't divided into individual boson particles. I think the bosons are a part of an accounting system that works with the different kinds of alteration of the base medium. Stemming perhaps from a desire to have a full particle model for everything. That's why the whole 'particle zoo' of the standard model was put aside at the beginning of the essay but not discarded. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

Summary

Looking at what is fundamental for the majority of physics

Foundational time, for happening and agency

EM signals, for perception of 'reality'

The disturbances of the base medium providing all of the fundamental forces

What is fundamental for progress in science and makes science adaptable/ able to develop rather than being 'set in stone'.

Vulnerability of science work

Heinrich Luediger

Dear Georgina,

some remarks regarding 'your' conception of time: in wave mechanics (classical and even quantum) the symbol t is a parameter, no metaphysical entity. Its equations describe bodies in mathematical space, which can be known precisely for this reason. That is, in physics (proper) nothing ever 'happens'. The 'things' we know don't happen, they simply are, and whatever 'happens' we don't and cannot possibly know. For example, the individually occurring blackenings on a screen behind a double slit illuminated by low level coherent light are mere happenings (unpredictable events in the future), whereas the shape of the interference pattern is a priori knowledge. What we can observe is our knowledge, not events in time.

In general, that there is something called historical development from the past to the future ((r)evolution) is a romantic (mainly 18th/19th centuries) idea of historians and sociologists later picked up by biologists. While the concept of natural evolution has meanwhile become dubious in biology by showing that the term 'species' has no empirical equivalent (e.g Hey J., On the failure of modern species concepts, 2006) it is the more surprising that ideas of evolution are thriving in physics.

Heinrich

Georgina Woodward

Hi Heinrich, thanks for your points.There are abstract mathematical spaces, such as Hilbert space in QM, and time is used as a parameter. This helps with analysis and calculation but is not the space where the physics is actually happening out in the universe rather than on the 'mathematical stage'. t is used but there is no explanation of what that t is in the universe rather than in the calculation.

You say, "in physics (proper) nothing ever happens". That comes from using Einstein's space-time continuum or other block time model as the explanatory framework for understanding.I am providing an alternative explanatory framework. That is why "The realm of Newtonian time stretching from infinity to infinity where Newton's eternal God is, always, and Block time and the space-time continuum; Parents of paradox" are put on the, to be (at least temporarily) disregarded, heap at the start of the essay. In the proposed alternative things really do happen because of fondatioanl sequential passage of time. Which is change in the configuration of the entire universe. There can be true agency rather than just the semblance of it. As there is no future, it is fully open/non existent, rather than just waiting to be encountered. The happenings do precede the receipt of signals that lead to production of sensory information by which knowledge of what has happened can occur.

Over time many different kinds of classification and segregation of species have been developed and they are not all the same.There are different ways of thinking about what a species is, the 3 main are 1. appearance and morphological similarity 2. biological reproductive compatibility (able to produce fertile offspring together) and 3. not being geographically isolated, so reproduction opportunity can occur between the individual with reproductive compatibility. There is obviously over lap between the categories given. There can even be distributions of individuals (such as certain Gulls )so that the extremes at either end of the distribution are different in appearance, seemingly different species, but fully reproductively compatible.

Personally I don't think there needs to be a singular definition of species but wider recognition that the term does not have one meaning and provision of clarity about how it is being used in a particular situation. What springs to mind is prefixes, giving Identseg-species, Biolseg-species and Geoseg-species, with acknowledgement that there is overlap between the categories. Once familiar the prefixes could be shortened to I, B and G. The good thing about the notion of a species is that it can be evaluated. It is one of those 'Sandcastles', not a failure of science. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

Id, Bio and Geo would probably do as prefixes. That they are being used to segregate populations, as a part of the species or not, need not be included, just mention somewhere. Eg. 'Biological segregation was used to define the species'. Where identification using a particular classification scheme is used, which one could be mentioned along with the statement that Identification segregation was used to define the species. That would seem to clarify matters. Other way of separating out species and not species, by behaviour springs to mind (that is, individuals would not meet or would not mate together because of behavior differences, despite biological reproductive compatibility and geographic overlap of territory), could just be given another different prefix and appropriate explanation. This allows 'species' to be retained for practical purposes such as analysis of populations and communication but without ambiguity. No need for a singular definition. Georgina

Georgina Woodward

'Habit-species' would work for the behavioural variant mentioned.

Some other variants Mus-species, known only from collections, whether museum or private, and Foss-species, known only from fossil remains thought to be extinct. Which will probably also be special cases of I.d.-species.(I meant I.d., for identification, in the earlier post not Id). I have come across 'fossil species' being used. Georgina

Heinrich Luediger

Dear Georgina,

apologies for my late reply...

"That comes from using Einstein's space-time continuum..." No! It comes from Parmenides! 'Mere happening' cannot be observed in principle. Assuming (just for probabilistic reasons) that you are not familiar with cricket, what you would observe in a cricket game is people moving in certain ways and doing things with bats and balls. Then, for you, every game-oriented 'move' by the players would be entirely unexpected, i.e. you wouldn't be able to observe the GAME. Likewise, what we see on an oscilloscope before synchronization is noise. The synchronization, however, is what WE bring to the measurement, namely, the a priori knowledge what it takes to make a signal of certain periodicity APPEAR to stand still. So, hypotheses, I think, are the most powerful scientific instruments there are, because -if they're good - they make things stand still, and they do this by finding the right way to think (speak) about the world (difficult job indeed). The solution of the equations of motion is always a body in space, e.g. an orbit or trajectory, which is why I said in a previous essay that in Newton's laws the apple does not even feature.

Time, on the other hand, is what we experience when we are 'unsynchronized', because time begins to flow when we are permanently forced to change our expectations.' Time' is the indicator of things-going-wrong, and since disorder is wrong, the direction of time is in the direction of increasing entropy.

I'll be back on evolution and species later.

Heinrich

Heinrich Luediger

Dear Georgina,

from my previous post it is clear that I think something is 'wrong' with evolution just for the reason of being set in grammatical-historical 'time'. When things begin to 'happen' - SOMETHING has happened! - we admit that we don't have the faintest idea what's going on. Then we don't know what it was, why or how. That's why Parmenides said that change (and hence time) are inexistent or illusions. So, it was important to me to first show that there is no time to be found in the equations of motion (for the reason that human experience concerning e.g. the moon as a phenomenon and its geometrical orbit (an ellipse) are timeless and share no common measure). Likewise doesn't H2O share any common measure with 'water' (he who claims that H2O is cool, self-cleaning and a precondition for life as we as we know it, simply claims too much; these qualities don't flow from H2O, but from water). That is, the 'hard' sciences have ADDED entities to natural language incommensurable with the phenomena and, therefore, not possibly contradicting them. The hard sciences, however, became soft the very moment when their entities were regarded as really existing, i.e. independent of the phenomena. Hence relations between their entities inevitably moved to the foreground with the effect that the past became the playground of 'theories', thus losing any foothold in the present.

Now let's look at evolution. What happened to the hard sciences only relatively recently (their historicisation), happened to biology already in the aftermath of Darwin. By reifying the extremely successful concept of the biological cell, the becoming of life on this planet had necessarily to disappear in the past.

However, if paper is patient - even more so is the past!

I'll be back with comments on the 'species' concept.

Heinrich

Heinrich Luediger

Dear Georgina,

whatever trait, function or behavior is taken as a definition of species is an abstraction in the original sense of the word (from L. abstrahere, to draw away from, to isolate from, etc.). As such the notion species is a logical-positive (Humean) a posteriori rule over plain observations (which we know never converges toward truth). Hence the term species means whatever we want it to mean and it fails to be efficacious because it is complex. On the other hand, the electron, the EM wave and the benzene ring have in common that they cannot be observed as such for the reason of not being abstractions but, rather, a priori complements.

A priori concepts tell us something about the present, whereas a posteriori rules tell us something about the past or the future, but never about the present. This is why there is Darwinism (the -ism being an indicator of an ideology) but not Newtonism or Maxwellianism.

Heinrich

pjackson

Georgina,

Thanks. That makes more sense now and I better understand your view. I agree much but not all. 3 things remain;

1. Non-locality. You deny it (rightly) but you schema can't explain WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away. I've shown there IS a way but it's slightly different to your which you seem locked in to. viz;

2. Lens If the initial lens field electron interaction is what converts the Maxwell 'far' to 'near' (local c) fields then all becomes logical. Lambda (yes, it's a scalar, so has length in the local frame!) changes. i.e. as the waves 'pile up' on entry as you head into them), then after transmission to a processor we find some 'frequency'.

3. Intensity is amplitude squared and quite another thing (see Born's rule & Malus's Law in my essay). 'Standard candles' have been rare since electricity! We measure long distances by cosmic redshift. But that's also flawed not what I inferred anyway (or astrophysics requires). There is ALWAYS some local ambient medium rest frame for propagation (at 'c' unless a dense matter medium). Ergo there IS some lambda, it's changed only when it interacts with a co-moving lens (or any fermion field with a new rest frame). Is that not as self apparent as it is consistent with the evidence with thought?

Once those 3 things are all slotted neatly into place the classical mechanics solution to so called non-locality compatible with your thesis can emerge. I wont repeat how here as it's all in my (& Declan's) essay!

I hope you're still receptive to different concepts? (so many seem not to be!)

Nice conversation

Peter

Georgina Woodward

Peter thanks for considering my responses.

1. Your "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". There is an error in assuming Bob already has a result, a singular, limited,fixed state, outcome state or value, to be changed. The particles are formed having opposite unmeasured behavior. It is not characterized as a singular state until the conditions are applied that only allow a singular state to be found. It does not mean there isn't a behaviour happening, or a singular object. That behaviour or object can be accepted as absolute; not qualified or diminished in any way, i.e. total. and existing independently and not in relation to other things. Whereas the measurables are relative to viewpoint, or way in which a procedure is applied.

I have read your essay twice the second reading made more sense than the first.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Peter, the jury is out on your lens idea. From reading your previous work and discussion son FQXi blogs, I realize this allows you to have a non uniform speed of light but always measured at c. My recent thinking has been along the lines that the EM waves are hosted by a medium not empty space and a characteristic of that medium is that it can only transmit the waves at absolute velocity of c; because of what it is.

Linked:Interesting list and short explanations of measurements. Standard candles and red shift are mentioned as well as evaluation of most luminous of certain kind of star conglomerations Distance Measurement in Astronomy.

I don't disagree that the EM has a behaviour with a characteristic that is measured as a wavelength, prior to measurement. I think the 'what is the wavelength?' question depends on how it is measured, the relation between the observer and the signal. Not alteration of the wave. I'll think on. Kind regards Georgina

Edwin Klingman

Dear Georgina Woodward,

I like that you jump in at the deep end, "shedding a heap of unnecessary ideas about the universe." In fact, your first two, time stretching from infinity to infinity, and block time in the space-time continuum, are the focus of my essay. [Eckhard also has a lot to say about this.]

I'm with you in assuming only one kind of base existence from which all other kinds are formed. I'm with you on the object universe being at the same time and only time everywhere, i.e., Now.

After dealing with time, you treat electromagnetic radiation, which I too treat in my essay. In fact, I agree with almost all of your essay. You finally conclude by suggesting that Einstein's relativity can be cross examined. That is what I do in my essay. I hope you will read it and find it interesting. It supports your essay quite strongly. Don't worry about the math. It's correct.

It is so good to see the sharp edges get knocked off of our models. They get smoother and smoother with every contest.

Congratulation on a very well written essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Woodward

Edwin, I am glad you and I agree on some important points about time and existence, On existence; what I have proposed, and you are in agreement, is as simple as possible but no simpler as Einstein recommends.

I am really pleased to find that you also want foundational, sequential time that is fully simultaneous and without past or future. It is necessary but can not by itself account for all observations in physics. So our views diverge.

Some snippets from the essay related to the points above:

"EM produced simultaneously (the same uni-temporal Nows) from an object, or collection of objects forming an event can be received at different times (different uni-temporal Nows) by different observers at different distances from the source. This gives the way non simultaneity of seen events occurs but it does not infer the persistence of material objects in time."GW i.e. non simultaneity of observed events but with no material past (only EM signals originating at those past events ), This resolves the temporal paradoxes.

.".....................The above list of differences between products of EM processing and the fermion based sources of electromagnetic radiation should make clear the need to differentiate them and not treat 'the seen' as the external material existence."GW Not differentiating then is the category error in Relativity. First in SR and transported over to GR with the assumption of externally physically real spacetime. I might say spacetime products are emergent from a process not foundational reality. This understanding makes sense of Barn pole type paradoxes as what is seen is always a visual product and not material object.

Just because we are both looking at the same theory does not mean our conclusions are compatible. Although you say you agree with my essay from looking at your own I see you do not - but that's OK . We all have our own unique perspectives, notice things that resonate with us and perhaps gloss over the rest. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

Thanks Stephen.

« Previous Page Next Page »