The language of Physics does not usually distinguish between potential sensory information in the environment and the product generated by an observer. eg. the words - Light, sound, smell, frequency.
If true /false logic is a rock, then ambiguity is paper, and necessary and adequate differentiation is scissors.
Thank Georgina, for engaging and interesting observations on my forum. To yours:
The square of the hypotenuse is only equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides if all sides are straight lines. If the hypotenuse is a wave path and the other two sides are straight lines, then Pythagoras theorem does not apply.
I Answer.
Yes, that's why I use exponents and logarithms in my formulas at the end of the essay. Then Pythagoras' theorem becomes a special case and approximation in the local part of the universe.
Regards,
Branko
For any readers of the comments posted here. The comment I made eon Branko's page was written about Einstein's light clock thought experiment. The reasoning Einstein used about the experiment is used by him as support for Special Relativity. I was showing why that reasoning is not spot on. Written in regard to Branko's :"There are numerous traps in the application of mathematics in natural sciences...". and my: " it is difficult to know what is correct, when the model of reality being modeled is not necessarily so."
Dear Georgina Woodward!
We think that the concepts of the WORD and WORLD are not coincidentally so consonant. Оbviously the WINDOW used to be the WIND DOOR.
We looked into our Siberian refrigerator and found a mammoth there!
Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,
Siberian Federal University.
Hi Pavel and Dmitry. I think if you read my essay you might find some ideas of interest to you in it. I do 'talk' about time near the beginning. The nature of time is a particular interest of mine. Near the end I'talk' about Pleistocene Park,, with which you must be familiar. Do you know about Harvard's project to create mammoth elephant hybrids? They have made some embryos.
Hi Georgina,
I know I have commented to you on my blog but I thought I had better re-inforce what I said here. Yours was the first essay I printed and read. I read it twice to my wife translating to her since I understood what you were saying. She asked me to vote publicly for her which I did early on.
I have now read and commented on about 30 essays. It has been a full time job that I have taken seriously during these Covid19 isolation times. I have explored many nooks and crannies and found some like minded journeyists on the way. But you were the first I found that shared similar interests.
I developed my theory of time some 5 years ago, although it had been a lifetime in the making. It has served me well, and even just yesterday explained the Andromeda Paradox away. So I get excited from time to time, when I use my own insights.
Yesterday I critiqued Carlo Rovelli's essay on Presentism and Eternalism, and found that I did not agree with him on the definitions of presentism, which is why I think my relative verdandism makes more sense.
We much touch base on the time topic after this essay comp. is over.
Best regards
Lockie Cresswell
Triple Pun: "If you are tied to a kangaroo, you are bound to hop!"
A delightful journey Georgina...
It is always enjoyable to read one of your essays. I can always find something of value, so long as I don't get caught up in points of disagreement. I don't think it is productive for me to debate some points, because we will never exactly agree. But it appears that your picture of things becomes more and more tight with fewer things to argue about, with every new essay.
And you make the journey fun!
All the Best,
Jonathan
Good one.
Hi Lachlan,
It is very good to know you read, understood and liked the essay. Tell your wife I appreciate her public vote very much, The other one was my son, who read through the re-write for me and shared his thoughts on it.
With hindsight I should have had a more enticing introduction. I think some didn't make it past the elephant jokes.
Re.the nature of time: I think this essay by JCN Smith is a good place to start. https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Smith_Rethinking_a_Key_Assu.pdf It is easy to read and clearly explained.
Thank you Jonathan, much appreciated.
I mean, Re. the nature of time, as I see it: [etc.]
It would be helpful to know what you disagree with It would give me an idea of what i need to work on.If you share your disagreement I will not argue the points with you here, but thank you.
Something i talk about in the essay is how the sate of something observed depends on the relation formed between the observer or reference object (relative to this point of view) and the observed object. Without establishing a singular point of view the state can not be known. I did not talk specifically about magnetism, though I think it has a place in the conversation about measurement and viewpoint. I have elsewhere talked about the alignment of electrons in a magnet. With length wise vibration there will be OUT (relative to the material , IN (to the material) at one pole .While at the other pole because of the alignment there will be corresponding IN, OUT. This gives opposite poles though the electrons are moving in the same way. No mono-poles because breaking the magnet will give two smaller magnets, with the same happening at the poles. Even at the scale of a single electron. Whether it presents as a north or south pole depends on the measurement relationship. It seems likely to me that it is this rather than spin (rotation) that causes separation into up and down outputs of Stern Gerlach apparatus measurement. Lengthwise vibration is not enough to account for the properties of the magnet. At the poles the electrons are not constrained by the next aligned electron but because they mutually repel, spread out over the surface. Giving the characteristic fluffy iron filing ends when used to view the magnetic field. There needs to be another component which to avoid ambiguity I will call rotation rather than spin. Each rotation is at 90 degrees to the length wise vibration. The rotation will be at the North end from the exterior of the magnet to the interior of the magnet, and corresponding interior of the magnet to exterior of the magnet at the south pole. With the rotation of all of the free electrons aligned lengthwise to give maximum separation.There is no fundamental difference between the electrons at the North and South.The difference is in how they are looked at, looking at each end rather than considering the alignment within the body of the magnet. The rotations will give the appearance of the field at the poles. This then poses the question: what is the rotation of an electron that is free of a material? Tying back into the relativity of measurement: The orientation of the rotation depends upon how it is observed. Top and bottom views gives opposite clockwise / anti clockwise states. As do left hand view and right hand view. It is therefore not possible to give the state of rotation prior to establishing the measurement relationship, If uniformity of form of the electron is assumed there is no inherent difference between top and bottom of the electron and left and right hand sides of the electron. So all rotation happening unmeasured is of the same kind.
Considering the spin of a free (from a material) electron: Right hand side (RHS) clockwise and RHS anti clockwise are reversed by inverting the electron. So are LHS clockwise and anticlockwise. Top left to right rotation and Top right to left rotation are reversed by 180 degree turn about the lengthwise axis. Bottom right to left and left to right are in the same way reversed by turn about the lengthwise axis.
By lengthwise axis II mean the direction along which vibration occurs. Which would be lengthwise as relates to a bar magnet, when the free electron is in a magnet.
Thinking about it, either inversion or turning 180 about the 'lengthwise axis causes reversal of the apparent state. Whether considering top and bottom with motion as described or RHS and LHS with motion as described. The point of that is to show the orientation of motion is not inherent to the electron alone but depends son the observation relationship with it.
Einstein Field Equations - for beginners! (On You Tube) 35.12 to 37.20 In one frame of reference alpha is 90 degrees. Cos alpha is 0 and work done is 0. You say that has to be so for all reference frames. I know in this presentation you are just using two dimensions. However space-time is taken to be 4 dimensional in Relativity. There is a time component.That means if alpha is varying with time it could be seen to be different in another reference frame. (The observer seeing the system as it was at a different time, because of his/ her/ its different spacial location.) That different observers can see same events differently is a corner stone of Special relativity. This explanation providing the Tensor which is the same for all reference frames seems to contradict that. Anyone want to defend the video argument?
"if the tensor has a value of 0 in one frames of reference, it must have a value of zero in all frames of reference" ...."And that is why tensors are so important in Einstein's field equations." DrPhysicsA
Maybe for 2 dimensional vector space or Euclidean space, where there is no time difference but the (hidden) assumption that the different reference frames refer to the same time. I don't think that can be reconciled with the fact that General relativity is an attempt to model what happens in space-time.
To be more precise I think I should not mention observers, as this is just transformation from one set of co-ordinates to another (as if different observer viewpoints.) The same argument applies. Also to clarify; by "hidden" I just mean not overtly stated. I don't mean deliberately concealed.