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'.

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

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,

    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

    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.

    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

    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

    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

    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

      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

      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

      Hi Georgina,

      Good responses. Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result! He and Alice measure simultaneously, at any polarizer (field) angle they may chose at the last moment, and only actual outcomes are compared. Your explanation is then unfortunately disproved by Bells irrefutable theorem (all the best brains have tried & failed!).

      I'm not claiming to have done so as it's a tautology. Impossible. However there is just ONE way to change the starting assumptions (which include that; "The particles may be formed having opposite unmeasured behavior not characterized as a singular state"). which would circumvent Bells irrefutable logic.

      That way starts simply by employing Maxwell's twin paired orthogonal state momenta, (including 'curl') which my experiment proves DOES also exist inversely proportional to 'spin up/down'. Then (here doctrine will struggle to grasp it) it should be understood the measurement is NOT of 'spin' but of values of 'different' momenta, measured orthogonally (the Pm Channels). Only then can logic emerge. BUT, there MUST be a random but definite & opposite oscillation values prior to interaction. (Did you know polarisers can completely REVERSE spin polarity?!) You also have to think in 3D for the x,y, AND z, axes.

      I know that's tricky at first so am trying to understand how best to explain it.

      On LENSES. If you study quantum optics you'll see the jury there returned a verdict decades ago! Wavelengths change on interaction (as the refractive plane of a prism) both due to 'polarization mode dispersion' (PMD) AND due to any relative motion (Doppler shift). i.e. We KNOW Light travels through glass at a DEFINITE SPEED (~0.67c) no matter what it's state of motion through and previous propagation medium! The only problem is few theoreticians seem to do any good revision of quantum optics!

      Your link was dead but as I'm an astronomer that was very much my area. It was recently found that the limit 'c' applies locally to orbiting charges even as the orbit grows, so increasing orbit time, so wavelength found. If you'd like to see a video rationalizing the anomalies without needing acceleration expansion try this; Redshift Video .

      very best

      Peter

      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

      Peter, you are moving the goal posts. You were asking about in your words "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". Now you are saying "Problem is there's NO assumption that Bob 'already has' any result!." Which of course makes the first inquiry redundant. As I have been saying, to paraphrase -there is no result before the result and that puts classical realism out of the game.

      Thanks for your explanations of your work. I do grasp that the difference in the particles pre-measurement is not in spin, spin being the name giving to the different response to the magnetic field upon measurement.

      I don't have a problem with the characteristic of the behaviour, measured as wavelength, being affected by change of environment.

      Re. potoreceptors: The energy of the photon which is directly proportional to frequency, either is or is not sufficient for chemical change of the pigment.

      If you don't mind I'd like to leave it there is this is getting away from discussion of my essay. Regards Georgina

      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,

      Thank you for your kind words. Your essay clearly dispels what is not relevant in you "heap of assumptions," and mentioning right off the necessary foundations. I like it that you mention "vulnerability" is fundamental in that failed theories can serve as stepping stones to further discovery, stating that even Darwinian evolution can be re-examined using epigenetics. This is well-stated.

      Thanks for the good read.

      Jim Hoover

      '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

      Dear Georgina,

      I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

      Joe Fisher, Realist