Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes

Eckard,

"How is in case of the (assumed as monofrequent and steady) two sinusoidal signals the interaural time difference ITD essentially distinguished from the objectively also existing interaural phase difference?"

If a person wears headphones, and a steady sine-wave is played into one ear and a steady cosine-wave, of the same frequency and amplitude, is played into the other, and then the experiment is repeated with a sine-wave in both ears, and the person is asked if he or she perceived any difference, the answer will be no, as far as I have ever heard.

Something else, like an amplitude transient, has to be introduced, in order for them to be distinguished. For a distant sound source (without headphones), such a transient can be induced, by merely moving your head and thus changing (modulating) the relative amplitudes received by the two ears. It is true that this will also modulate the phase, but, as the headphone experiment indicates, a pure phase difference cannot be detected.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

It is only the manmade choice of a reference point t=0 that may make a steady sinusoidal wave for instance a sine wave or likewise a cosine wave. One cannot even play a cosine-wave at all without having a reference for the timescale.

A non-existing difference is of course not audible.

When the scale of GMT was arbitrarily abstracted from reality, causality got lost. This is my main concern.

Steady ITDs are referring left and right signals to each other. Their RELATIVE to each other phase is not just audible but important for localization.

What about FT vs. (real-valued) CT, the latter omits either the not yet available future part of measured data or all unchangable past ones, in other worde the void odd "component". Any set of either only measured or only predicted data can be represented as a - sum of cosine components.

Eckard

Eckard,

"One cannot even play a cosine-wave at all without having a reference for the timescale." In the experiment I described, there is no need to reference either of the ears inputs to some hypothetical timescale. The listener is merely being asked to reference them only to each other; the signals are indeed different, you can plainly see the difference on a real-time, dual-trace oscilloscope displaying the two inputs. But the listener can nevertheless not perceive that difference. The difference is trivially detectable visually, but not-at-all audibly.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Your basic mistake is perhaps not obvious enough: As long as a steady signal with no begin snd no end has no reference point (t=0), one cannot yet at all identify it as a sine or cosine signal. This is valid for any wave that endlessly extends to both sides.

Why does a triggered oscilloscope make you believe it shows an absolute phase?

The chosen trigger threshold of a dual-trace oscilloscope repeatedly defines the reference for what is visible as a piece of data on screen. Because triggering is usually common to both channels, the phase is "trivially detectable visually". Anyway, it is RELATIVE phase as in case of ITD.

Audibility of ITD does of course not mean that one channel sounds different from the other one. For physiological reasons, the listener perceives the relative phase as something shifting the direction from where the signal comes more or less to the left or right.

Eckard

Eckard,

The reference trigger-point is simply a zero-crossing of one trace. Hence, it has nothing to do with any universal clock or time; the trigger-time is derived from the signal itself, not an external clock. This is why an AM-detected signal exhibits no phase - there are no zero-crossings within such a signal.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Admittedly, I am not sure how to understand "an AM-detected signal exhibits no phase". Perhaps AM stands for amplitude modulation. How to imagine an AM-detected signal? What kind of phase do you refer to?

When I mentioned the chosen trigger threshold I intended making you aware that the displayed phase of a single stationary signals depends on this arbitrary choice.

I know just two non-arbitrary reference points in a snapshot to be analyzed: the moment of s event and the now. Only elapsed time is therefore an absolute quantity. Usual time is a relative one.

Eckard

Eckard,

"Perhaps AM stands for amplitude modulation" Yes. There is no amplitude modulation on a pure, infinite sine-wave. The auditory system seems to function as a set of tuned, amplitude modulation detectors; it does not seem to be capable of directly detecting any frequency or phase modulation. Human perceptions of frequency, such as pitch, are actually caused by the amplitude modulation induced, by passing input sound waves through various bandpass filters, and detecting the induced amplitude modulations. ITD are similarly estimated from these induced amplitude variations.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Thank you for reminding me of detection by rectification. When my father got an allowance for using a radio in the early nineteen twentieth, he used a simple cheap "detector receiver". I wonder why did the experts of cochlea perhaps not understand the similar role of rectification by hair cells. Maybe, I should resume my discussion with Tianyin Ren.

Eckard

Joe Fisher,

[Fetzer] supports work that RE-EXAMINES THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE, including scientific methodologies for both conventional and frontier research.

Notice: "re-examines".

Getting more fundamental in physics means getting more appropriate in reality.

In Reality, FQXi didn't yet fulfil their promise "before the end of the year".

Eckard Blumschein

Mr. Blumschein,

Today's Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:

"Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. In this interview, Roger discusses the origins of the universe and its relation to mathematics and physics."

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXi.org and on my Facebook page.

Reality am not tensed. Unfortunately, the geniuses who put the English language together must have assumed that there was a definite past, a definite present, and a predictable future. No theoretical physicist has ever stated: "I is guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of a empty void." Many a theoretical physicist has gained great fame and vast fortune for firmly stating: "I am guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years ago."

Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Sir Roger Penrose ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite invisible quantum particle phenomena. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY

Joe Fisher, Realist

Visible Fisher,

"...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this," wrote Einstein in German in a 1954 letter to Erich Gutkind.

Instead of dealing with Susskind and Penrose, I will check Klingman's extended FQXi essay

http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0424

My computer is now able to correctly print all important details of Klingman's

explanation why Special Relativity seems to be confirmed.

Special relativity is firmly established but nonetheless its foundation is flawed as there is categorization error. Specifically category differentiation error; as material objects directly measured and measurements obtained from products of EM radiation sensory input and processing are not differentiated but treated as equivalent and therefore comparable. The supporting light clock argument has a category omission error. E. Klingman asks why the Lorentz transform between two reference frames? (not one reference frame). A: because the content of a reference frame, as it is seen, has to be the product of EM radiation input and processing. Different input for each observer depending on location and movement, relative to the material source gives different product, i.e. the reference frame content.

Established yes, but firmly? Experiments and practical use confirm that Lorentz gamma is correct and seem therefore to confirm that SR is correct. Klingman's essays are oerhaps the only lonely ones that attribute gamma to mass and energy instead of Relativity of time.

You Georgina, realized that SR is flawed by a categorization error. Klingman meant pretty much the same when he criticized two frames of reference. When I studied Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper, I agreed on that there is no apriori preferred frame of reference. The equations are valid in any frame. However, one must not use more than one frame at a time. Also one must not calculate the roundtrip speed of light from emitter to a moving mirror and return as did Einstein.

In which case can something be correct that is based on a mistake? I cannot imagine the compensation by another mistake. The flaw you, Klingman, and I revealed is definitely an essential one.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard, it feels to me like Edwin is providing a solution to something that isn't the problem-I mean by that his objecting to comparison of two different reference frames; Even that there are different reference frames. Edwin does not answer the question of, what is an inertial frame of reference really? but nonetheless sets out comparing energy in one such frame. As I see it, the object is not inhabiting the space-time reference frame or carrying it with it but the reference frame is a space-time product of ongoing processing EM radiation receipt. So if the object is not an observer of some kind, something capable of generating a product from input from the environment, then it should not have a reference frame. To give it its own reference frame is a category error.

Georgina,

Edwin is providing a solution to the problem how to accept that the foundation of SR is flaved while experiments proved gamma correct. Your problem is your suspition that Edwin might be wrong when he criticized two different reference frames in a common picture. I didn't write "at a time" because Poincaré/Einstein's local time denies a common time. On 57 pages Edwin gave hints how to answer your question "what is an inertial frame of reference really?"

Let me try and select key insight from page 32: "Einstein's geometric space-time worlds require a Lorentz symmetry group, but our energy-based physical world does not!" and "Geometry does not have mass terms."

In my own words, any frame of reference is nothing physical but arbitrarily chosen except for the NOW which is missing in space-time.

Being still aware of the topic "Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes" I feel Klingman's disolving Relativity paradoxes a good example. Klingman mentioned the quantum theory too.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard, I agree that even though the mathematics works there can be an error in the theory. I am sure that error is the categorization error appearing first early on, in the comparison of train lengths, in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", leading on to the paradoxes. To see something it is necessary to first receive and process the sensory input from the environment, making what is seen in the reference frame, as present, a product made by the observer not the external environment of the observer. That being so, it is certainly OK for each observer to have their own reference frame, their own observed present, and to make comparisons between them. I agree that there is a difference between the space-time product of an observer and the matter/ energy in the Source external reality. I agree the NOW ( as I say uni-temporal Now) is missing from space-time (observation product) but because space-time and Source material reality 'in uni-temporal space' are different. Perhaps Edwin is introducing the missing differentiation in his own way but not succinctly and is not accepting that the comparison of two reference frames is OK, just necessary different.

Georgina,

Something that is succinct expresses facts or ideas clearly and in few words. Well, there are definitely unnecessary and distracting elements but also logical gaps in the 57 pages. What about "accepting that the comparison of two reference frames is OK, just necessary different" I share the judgement of Michelson: SR is a monster. I don't see justification for sticking in the almost religious belief in something differing from intuition that is logically flawed at the very beginning and led into a bunch of horrible paradoxes.

Eckard Blumschein

That should have said, necessarily different.

Eckard 'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process. Transmission and processing are not instantaneous.

The physics happening precedes knowledge of it, obtainable from signal receipt and processing. That the physics happening is not happening within the space-time observation product but in uni-temporal space is important. That doesn't make different observers having different reference frames, (what they consider co-present) wrong.