Correction to my response, last paragraph: 'Have you come across-" It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves"?' (My question, not part of the quote as I wrote.) I expect it is familiar, said to be words of The 6th Patriarch of Chinese Zen School, Hui Neng.

Georgina,

Good to hear from you again. I'll have to get back from work to give a better reply, but a few quick thoughts;

We are pretty much in agreement, but in issues of style, I seem to go more for bullet points and you cover the issues with a more fine grained style. Your approach is far more academically appropriate, but I've found that since there is enormous institutional inertia toward the 'time is foundational' belief, few are going to`try to think it through, so my commitment has waned over the years. In fact, I really didn't have any intention of submitting an entry, but the bug just got under the saddle and I banged it out. Which shows, from the insufficient editing.

I do think though, that the subject of the topic is overlooked. Everyone keeps trying to peel away the layers and finding deeper layers, rather than considering foundational isn't so much initial cause, but neutral state. Like painting, is foundational trying to understand the the motives of all painters, or is it simply the blank canvas?

Dear John,

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

Georgina,

"It is important that the physical present is not confused with the experienced present."

I find the better I get at living in the real present, the more my mind absorbs quantities of input and consequently it gets mentally and emotionally distracting. So there is something to say for the little shell of habit and belief most of us call ourselves.

It seems we are on the same plane, with regards time as an effect.

I do have to say, I've been spending my free time reading news, etc. Our times are definitely heating up, which does make things happen fast. Just think, a hundred years ago, WW1 was in its last year and everyone fighting in it had been born before the first plane ever flew. Yet in the history of humanity, a hundred years is close to nothing. A comment that comes to mind; Cleopatra was closer in time to our age, than the building of the pyramids.

Good Luck,

John

Hi John, it is important in physics not to confuse what is happening -Now with the experienced present.

I like your blank canvas analogy. I don't think your are talking about complete nothingness, because you end talking about ether and the vacuum, not a perfect vacuum. I don't think a non existence, a nothingness can have attributes such as being infinite and in equilibrium. It just isn't.

Thought: if everything that exists is taken away, would the space where it would exist if it existed exist? In which case the space exists and so all existing things haven't been taken away.

My point was, taking space to be fundamental basis as you suggest, the space generated by the visual system of the observer is not the same space as the external reality. They are two different paintings, working with your analogy. Which ties in with your identification that the location an of a 3D co-ordinate frame is not singular or absolute, (you say subjective).

I might just create a painting that doesn't have a canvas, just the paint.I have been thinking of how. Kind regards Geogrina

Georgina,

Keep in mind the vacuum, through which light travels at C.

Why? What determines this rate, if an equilibrium of space isn't that vacuum? Where is no physical medium, no ether, just distance being measured by how fast light crosses it.

That goes back to my point about using spacetime to explain cosmic redshift. If the light is taking longer to cross this expanding frame of galactic relationships, then it is not Constant to that frame, so to what frame is it Constant?

It isn't that safe to travel beyond that experienced present. It is a bit like stepping off into the void, which is filled by lots of other spirits, equally searching. Life, without anchors.

Best,

John

Also, if it has no boundaries, then there is nothing to confine it, therefore it is infinite....

Our minds only work with what defines and thus limits our observations. You are quite right that it seemingly makes no sense, but then sense is to sense. We only sense boundaries and motion. Thus disequilibrium and finiteness.

John, Spacetime isn't expanding. As you said "The conservation of energy means there is no energy left in the past to manifest prior events" JBM, "there is only the physical present."JBM. There is something different about receiving light from the local galaxies, compared to EM from those that were more distant when they emitted it. The speed of the EM stays the same, but the wavelength can seem to be longer. Imagine 3 people in a line moving together as if in a race. One is pogo-ing up and down as he moves along, one is skipping and one is taking long strides. The race is a tie. I don't think it needs a measurement frame of reference to be constant but can be because of the characteristics of its host base medium, or if you want there to be nothing extra, because of what it is. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina,

Which would make redshift an optical effect. Check out this paper I referenced:

https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

"5. Conclusions

In the present work, the effect of attenuation and dissipation on propagation of waves governed by the Jeffrey equation is addressed. When packets of small but finite breadth are considered the presence of dissipation changes the central wave number of the packet. The distribution of the wave length around the central length is assumed to be Gaussian which is the most frequently encountered case in cosmology when hot stars are observed. Dispersion relation for the damped wave equation is derived and the evolution of the packet density is investigated in time (or space). It is shown that the attenuation acts merely to decrease the amplitude of the shifts packed, while the dissipation damps the higher frequencies stronger than the lower frequencies and shifts the maximal frequency of the packet to lower frequencies (longer wave lengths), i.e., the packet appears redshifted upon its arrival. For Gaussian wave packets, this kind of redshift is linearly proportional to the time passed or the distance traveled. The coefficient of proportionality contains the ratio of the dissipation coefficient and the initial width of the distribution which means that the thicker packets are redshifted more than the narrower ones for the same distance or for the same time. We call this liner relationship ''Hubble Law'' for redshifting of wave packets."

John

Great little essay, a pleasure to read and interesting angles. We agree our rather rudderless physics does need to address the sub-matter 'vacuum' more seriously & rely less on numbers.

You also seem to describe your view of time better than previously, or maybe it's me! You'll have seen from my own essay that the flawed assumptions leading to 'backwards causality' have been put to bed so common sense physics can prevail. The way is then clear to think as you do without fear of descent into LaLa land.

You also identify the scant evidence and broad anomalies in BB & redshift/inflation cosmological theories. I classify 'dark' matter & energy quite differently as they emerge from real sound evidence, but of course they're only 'tags' and also generally misunderstood. I agree Christoff's and Eric R's generalizations but have also identified HOW the expansion of a wavefront orbital (as part of the causal sphere surface) naturally produces the increased wavelength found on interaction ('measurement').

Actually M&M DIDN'T 'prove' quite what people think! Though an ether coupling with light and with a single universal rest frame IS disproved. M&M's last big experiment was in Chicago and their final conclusion was YES there IS ether! But with the phase (delay) corrections I identify in my essay it can only be as Stokes version 'dragged' with the local matter bounded by it's fields.

Michelson, A., Gale, H., Pearson, F., 1925 The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light. ApJ 61 (i.e. 'c' in the galaxy is c with respect to (wrt) the galactic centre rest frame, BUT 'c' in baryonic frames (is wrt the star) and in our ionosphere is wrt Earth). How much simpler can it be? Full analysis here; arXiv Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies. HJ 2012

So yes. "First you need a vacuum", then QM and all the other issues naturally resolve. Nice Job.

Peter

Peter

    Thank you, Peter.

    I have to say, the level of concentration I can bring to bear on this contest isn't sufficient. Not only the personal life, but just keeping up with the news is ever more distracting.

    If I was to suppose about dark matter and energy, it seems to me mass is an effect of gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass. That gravity is wave collapse, consolidation, synchronization, extending all the way out the radiological scales, to the spectrum of light and what we measure as dark matter is this attraction, contraction, consolidation far beyond what would be considered mass.

    As for dark energy, it is to explain why the rate of expansion doesn't decrease, with increasing proximity, at an even rate, but drops off rapidly, then flattens out, as sources get closer, but I look at it from the opposite direction, as an optical effect away from our location, then the need is to explain an effect which starts off gradually and then at an increasing rate, eventually going parabolic. Which would seem to be an optical effect that compounds on itself. So just optics, not another enormous force of nature, to explain a theory too popular to drop.

    I'm sure I'll comment on occasion, but my heart is not as into it as some years.

    Damn captchas to boot.

    Dear John,

    This is an extremely important idea: "Space is Basis". Almost one hundred years ago philosopher Pavel Florensky drew a conclusion that turned out to be extremely important for understanding of the sources of the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science: "The problem of space in the center of the worldview in all emerging systems of thought predetermines the development of the entire system. We repeat: worldunderstanding - spaceunderstanding / Миропонимание - пространствопонимание." (Unfortunately in the English language there are no complex words that can be translated correctly, so I translated them myself.) The understanding of space is the basic ideality of the fundamental science, is "grasping" of its ontological structure.

    I also believe that alternative ideas regarding the nature of time and the "beginning of the Universe" are needed . In fundamental physics there should be a wide competition of ideas.

    My high rating of your idea. I invite you to see my essay.

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      Thank you very much! I will definitely read your essay when I get off work.

      John and Vladimir,

      Understanding the space is understanding the world? At least, Guericke's experiments de vacuo spatio lead to the first industrial revolution and to electricity.

      Most likely John Merryman, Edwin Klingman and Max Born are correct (although this means that others were perhaps incorrect): Space is the eternal, ubiquitous and unchanging entity of mutual distances each of which may change.

      BTW, I just commented on presentism at 3009.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #26

      Eckard,

      Not really. The question is; "What is fundamental?" Not; "What is the TOE?"

      Since I would equate an equilibrium of the vacuum with absolute, as in absolute zero, then space would be both absolute and infinite, which would be the parameters of the extant. This being the dichotomy of bottom up energy and top down form inhabiting space and reaching to infinity.

      John,

      In my essay I distinguished between two quite different notions of infinity.

      I am not sure what you meant with not really.

      Eckard

      Eckard,

      I wasn't trying to explain reality, as in first cause, or fundamental theory, so much as give a conceptual foundation for physical reality. To resurrect space as what geometry maps, not an artifact of geometry.

      There are lots of potential infinities, as any open set can potentially go on forever. I'm arguing against the idea of a finite universe. I think when the James Webb space Telescope becomes operational, they will find ever more and larger structures, at ever further distances, than can conceivably be fit in the age limits of current cosmology.

      I suspect the background radiation will come to be seen as the solution to Olber's paradox. The light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum.

      6 days later

      Hi John Brodix Merryman

      It is important observation "It is also interesting to note that in the few days since I posted this, the issue of different methods of measuring the Hubble Constant keep yielding different numbers, with the errors bars on both just getting smaller, not converging" dear John Brodix Merryman......

      ............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on some of the concepts of Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -No Isotropy

      -No Homogeneity

      -No Space-time continuum

      -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

      -No singularities

      -No collisions between bodies

      -No blackholes

      -No warm holes

      -No Bigbang

      -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

      -Non-empty Universe

      -No imaginary or negative time axis

      -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

      -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

      -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp

        Dear John Brodix Merryman

        Thank you for reading my essay....

        You have nice concept; probably that there is a cyclical relationship between expanding radiation and collapsing mass.

        It is nice idea .... I never heard it before... this concept is good... that ' That mass is an effect of what we call gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass and this contraction extends to all stages and aspects of frequency contraction, or blueshift.'

        We should develop further, lets work out together.... By the way there is no darkmatter in Dynamic Universe Model.......

        Best Regards

        =snp