THE PULSE OF THE UNIVERSE. by Thomas Howard Ray

Thomas Ray

Thank you, Christian.

Do you use ResearchGate? Link is in references. Secure link--must copy and paste. Look for title, "Dynamic spacetime imposes matter continuity."

And besides, I am Emailing it to you. :-)

Cheers,

Tom

Joe Fisher

Dear Thomas Howard Ray,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

John Cox

Tom,

I took me another read and some headwork to get the criteria of "Popper-falsified" fixed in my mind which is essential to grasping the algebraic argument, but then it comes together. There are a number of ways to go with it, and I've saved it on my reader for that purpose. I like especially the simultaneous approach of -S and +S toward s, as the fundamental real behavior of covariant physical length contraction, which would place s in motion with a corresponding amplitude of lateral (orthogonal) extension at half-time cycle to c.

(Well, everybody comes looking for something that might expand their mind and maybe provide a citation to further their own grand designs.) Look what they've done to my song, Ma. Best wishes, my Friend. jrc

Thomas Ray

Hey John,

Popper falsification is simply this: theory is correspondent to result IFF theory is primary. IOW, theory always stands on its own, and result never stands on its own; result is never interpreted outside theory. A single negative experimental result can falsify a theory, though any number of positive experimental results cannot verify a theory. Let's see if we can express this in symbolic language: let TT' represent the two states of a theory, stand alone and stand with result, T0 and T'R; let RR' represent the two states of an associated result, unfalsified, R0, and R', falsified. Then the relation allows only one meaningful match, T'R' -- the rest do not contain enough information for a closed logical judgment.

I think you've got a kinesthetic feel for relative motion. Now pair it with the relativistic rejection of simultaneity of events.

Thanks for your confidence, John.

Tom

Georgina Woodward

Hi Tom, I feel uneasy about your "operational principle of correspondence" , your "What is real corresponds to what is possible in a reciprocal manner." For something to be real it has to have been, and be possible but possibility does not require the reality of the possible. To illustrate, here are two different scenarios

1. there are 6 playing cards, one is selected. The un-selected, which were also possible choices are counterfactual. Equally real but not the selected result. 2. There is a vat holding six cups worth of water, as a single body of liquid. A cup of water is taken from the vat.There are not 5 more individual cups of water that are the counterfactual not drawn water, although there was the possibility of taking six cups worth out of the vat. The cup of water selected has only come into being at the act of taking the water. Which for this scenario makes real and possible very different from scenario 1.

You write "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable" At the time the result is obtained the possible has been reduced to the inevitable outcome but prior to that reduction in possible outcomes, (through decision of what states will be considered , the viewpoint, the apparatus and/or method applied), the possible exceeds the singular result. And as in the water scenario the possibilities need not be real, isolated results, awaiting selection. (An argument against local realism and counterfactual definiteness.)

With respect, Georgina

Georgina Woodward

I think you might argue that as the water is just water there are not six possibilities but only one. So let say this is not distilled water but a non homogeneous mix of water, pond life, and pollution. Which will provide what is necessary for six different cups of water.

Georgina

John Cox

Georgina,

I think you read that too quickly, the criteria clearly stated as "Popper-falsified" is expressed in the proposition Theta - Lambda (note: capitals) = 0 . That is what you state in paragraph 3. When the essay lays out the reasons for criteria, the statement "we are forced to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable." is what a forgone conclusion would be without falsification by Popper's clarity. I had to wrestle with that myself, because it first seemed a contradiction to me too. It probably could be presented a little more clearly as a condition. I admit I've gotten accustomed to reading Tom and his acumen in math often is self apparent to him, but then could benefit from a little editorial direction when his prose gets ahead of his argument. Glad to see you got some community cred for your essay, jrc

Georgina Woodward

Hi John,

I think I was showing that the possible (not falsified but equally likely as the realization) is not equal to the real. The equality I'm thinking about is a quantity. The possibilities, which could be itemized exceed the real.As there is no real cup of water until it is filled, and when filled it is one out of many possibilities.

Tom says "we are led to admit the possible is equal to the inevitable, one of the cornerstones of quantum theory." If so the inevitable is equal to the possible,-but it isn't equal, unless the equality is not meant to represent equality of quantity. Instead saying something like 'the inevitable is identical to a possibility'. Which is correct but only one of many. John, I don't know what you mean by "without falsification by Popper's clarity" in regard to that quoted sentence.

John Cox

Popper quotes Einstein about a "real thing" or mathematical result (thereof). A real thing (Theta) minus a possibility (Lambda) equals zero (0), that is the stated proposition of reciprosity. You are adding your own criteria to someone elses structure of argument, then arguing against the limits of their argument. You are talking about what you want to talk about. As always. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John, Tom did not explain that:"Popper quotes Einstein about a "real thing" or mathematical result (thereof). A real thing (Theta) minus a possibility (Lambda) equals zero (0), that is the stated proposition of reciprosity." I did not realize the 'equation' in the essay was based on Popper quoting Einstein but thought it was Tom's own notion. That isn't clear. From what you have said, it seems to me, Tom assumes the reader would know that. Never mind if it was Einstein, Popper or Tom. Perhaps I have not understood it as it was intended. What does subtraction of a possibility from a real thing mean? And Why subtract? And how do you subtract it if the possibility isn't an actualized thing or state or value. The cup of water possibilities aren't distributed as individual outcomes in space but in an indistinct blend of states, only becoming definite and singular when the relation of container and water with contents come together in the scoop. Unlike the playing cards.) Or is it meant something like; when the result is obtained it is the same as the possibility of that result, which can then be dispensed with and nothing extra has been added to the universe? What was Einstein thinking?

John Cox

Georgina,

Your essay has had 15 people rate it and 17 people comment on it. Congrats, most comments were favorable to your soliloquy. But soliloquy is unbounded argument by inductive reason which grants wide ranging opportunity for possibility thinking, and that is how you customarily address matters.

Empiricism requires structuring a bounded argument for deductive reason, reducing possibilities by elimination of what doesn't meet a specified criteria. And the specifications Tom sets limits actual results to algebraic expression from a small set of elements and operations to argue that a harmonic oscillation of spacetime is a physical solitonic wave. Its more realistic than the basis of String Theory.

Now I have long recognized that it takes some small effort to see how Tom translates a literary argument into a symbolic argument, but he probably has to struggle with it too because he's one of those folk who think in symbology. And I ain't! There is no such thing as a 'perfect reader' and Tom is a dense read. But he does state that it was Popper quoting Einstein... "(****)"...and then in his own words, 'in defense of metaphysical realism' (and a lot of metaphysics isn't). His prose does muddy when he allows that theory (writ large) can lead to accepting the possible as inevitable, and he correctly identifies the unbounded argument that makes; as the cornerstone of QM (which rejects realism). So he chooses axioms that subtract possibilities that do not correspond with what is taken to be real (the form of argument is not dependent on anyone accepting spacetime as real, the argument is structured on precedent empirical deduction that it is). Like it or not, he makes a fundamental argument. People just don't like spacetime because it admits that the passage of time occurs at a rate that can only be assumed as being anywhere between nil and light velocity and that makes space a something because its the only way to compare rates with somewhere else relative to light velocity.. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John, there is a passage of writing in quotation marks introduced by "Einstein was quoted by Karl Popper". That passage does not include the equations or refer to them. So to make the connection between the two requires some additional knowledge, Einstein seems to be expressing that he is OK with considering things as separate from what is sensorily given. The same kind of idea as his opinion 'the moon is there when I'm not looking'.

John I can accept that the formula given is an expression of an immutable argument on which the following work is based. There is a jump from talking about metaphysics to employing algebraic language. The meaning of the argument in those first 5 lines isn't clear i.e. unambiguous, meaning wise, to me, the reader. John you say "So he chooses axioms that subtract possibilities that do not correspond with what is taken to be real ". There is no explanation in the essay that says that is what he is doing. There is a negation of the Theory of the real (which doesn't explain itself, as you have explained what is happening).

John Cox

Georgina,

yeh I know, I should read Irving Copi.

Thomas Ray

Hi James,

I only meant to ask, when will scientists will get hip to metaphysical realism -- i.e., that which makes a metaphysical question tractable to Popper falsification, thus scientific.

Your essay, you betcha.

Tom

Thomas Ray

Hello John,

1. Doesn't (- 1) ( 1) = - 1?

2. No. Spacetime is the foundational field.

3. I have no idea what you mean, but I enjoy passing time with you. ?

Tom

Thomas Ray

Actually, John, that ? was meant to be :-). System won't accept emoticons.

John Merryman

Tom,

This life business just keeps bubbling along.

Though my intuition is that it is a bubble and when it pops, we just smear out across the universe.

I've become pretty diffuse already.

Best.

Thomas Ray

We agree, John. We are a part of a matter continuum, smeared across the universe. I like the metaphor.

Thomas Ray

John,

Thank you! You're my sanity check.

Georgina, will reply later.

John Cox

Relax. Euler would have a ball with it. :-)

Georgina Woodward

Tom, I have read some of your replies to others here and see that your essay is very different from what it seemed to be, to me, not knowing its background. It would have been helpful if you had said something more about it in the abstract or in an introduction. It might have saved the misunderstanding, and my time trying to work out what you were trying to convey.I'm sorry I don't follow other people's work on sites other than FQXi, so unlike some of the other readers I am not familiar with what you have been doing. Regards Georgina

John Cox

Tom,

Pardon my pestering you with my asides to Jonathan, trying to liken a spinning plate to your one dimensional oscillation. It has been helpful to me in fixing more of an understanding of your scheme of things. The oscillation likened to a timing mark on the rim of a plate introduces the time parameter onto a 2D curved surface.

Any harmonic oscillation by nature and definition of the harmonic series relates to the parabolic function of 'a penny a day, doubled each day' which would hold on a 2D plane, and equates with the acceleration of gravity and kinetic rate of transfer of momentum. Whereas in GR, the Lorentz function which relates to a hyperbolic function of the natural exponential series operates as elapsed to on a curve, and equates with time dilation. So harmony is preserved onto the curved surface through relativistic dilation which would equate with a 'shrinking' of the base circle of a hyperbola conical section necessary to rotate onto the parabolic plane of that conical base circle. The Incredible Shrinking Surface of Gravity via curved spacetime. jrc

John Cox

Tom,

The simplest example of application of your co-ordinate free framework to project any solitonic wave, would be transmission of AC current. The conventional thinking is that electrical current is a flow of electrons yet is measurable at about 9/10 c. The excuse is to blame it on Resistance. No. The work function theorem of kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2 is wholly consistent with time dilation to 1/2 at 86.6% c. And the induction of current by slow speed (60 cycles per second) oscillation raises the velocity of the electrostatic fields of electrons in atomic structure by a magnitude of c to a magnetic density of potential as the pulse soliton train pulses along the wire guide. The only thing that needs go light speed is the soliton. Your m=F/a and reciprocal displacement variable differentiates to local energy density boundary conditions as distinctly different from lower c magnitude(s) density regions of free space beyond the earth's magnetosphere. And its in the scalar term of the integration of acceleration of kinetic energy that is magnitude not direction that projects displacement orthogonally making a one dimensional oscilation a 4 dimensional solition literally 'work' in a 3D=t real locale.

Its at the lean end of energy density where time reaches dilation to zero because that is the limit time can pass, and motion ends, where spacetime would go smooth.

John Cox

Approximating the accumulated dilation from real time of acceleration from the neutral plane to peak voltage in a 60 cycle/second alternator amounts to `89.37% c. So paying your electric bill you are buying lost time.

John Cox

89.358% c

I hadn't jotted down as I did that.

Anything(!) accelerated to light velocity from rest is going to take a period of time to get there, and as velocity increases time dilation progresses as a Lorentz Invariant. The sine curve plots the acceleration curve of a circular motion, so it isn't necessary to integrate all the partials of the cosine transformation of change of slope on that curve to accumulate the total sum of dilation factors. In the case of a 60 cycle alternator, what is being accelerated is the c proportion potential difference. So an approximation of integration on the sine curve can relate directly back as an exponentiation of the integral period on the circle arc. Zero to peak voltage occurs in pi/4 = 1/240 second. So how accumulated time dilation in that acceleration period can be approximated would be:

C - {[( e |1/240|)^1/2) c] / c }

I think I wrote that okay. jr