Hello Sue,

I have just read your essay and enjoyed it immensely. I not sure whether the computer-naive will appreciate your poetic analysis [think GW in your last essay] but I am computer competent and I loved it. I almost saw a Data General 1600 or Hewlett-Packard 2100 in front of me as you booted the hardware and the system experienced spatial differentiation over time with "address-mapped switch configuration...with which to query the entity's experience" [which showed up in lights].

Of course the "continual pulsing" is conventional, and not necessary; just an efficient way to design. But your "entity that experiences differential/transformation over time" is applicable to the consciousness field-based model of absolute intelligence.

In my terminology awareness is fundamental to consciousness, but intelligence is obtained by adding logic circuitry.

I'm sure you see that your model of intelligence applies directly to my model of the brain in the consciousness field. The awareness comes from the field and the intelligence comes from the axon/synaptic logic circuitry.

I suspect that a key difference is that the self-interaction of the distributed continuous but inhomogeneous consciousness field replaces an equivalent "addressable spatial occupancy map, within which to query the entity's experience."

In short, I believe that by abstracting conventional computing at a very high level you have captured the essentials for understanding the intelligence aspect of the consciousness field model of the brain, something that most models of 'brain as computer' fail to do. Congratulations!

As for my interpretation of some items in your comment:

I haven't thought enough about Planck length to have an opinion about Stephen's much smaller length. I have come to believe that gravity is the substrate that the universe is made of/from. Einstein said that 'there is no space absent field', and I think that he considered the gravitational field to fill space. It serves as the local ether through which light flows as a disturbance in the field, pretty much the way Hertz thought of it. After last year's detection of colliding neutron stars we know that both light and gravity waves travel at the speed of light, c.

Instead of space and time being 'mixed' by Lorentz, I associate the gamma as the inertial factor, increasing rest mass by the kinetic energy of motion through the local gravity. The heavier the inertial mass, the harder it is to accelerate, and the limit is imposed for mass with v less than c.

I too consider geometry as fundamental and believe that the brain's interaction with the field as described produces 3D geometric shapes in the physical brain that mirror the shapes we see around us. Once these shapes are learned through eyesight, we should be able to recall them and play with them at will.

With warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thanks Professor Klingman,

The convergences are important at my humble opinion. I understand about this consciousness that in the past it was not easy to discuss about this. Probably that the modern theoretical physics are more open to discuss about it. It is the same with the main origin of this universe, I know that the sciences Community is divided , a part considers that we come from nothing or by a kind of accident from an heat energy , the others consider a kind of creator with oscillations or fields like the strings theorists, or me and my particles 3D spheres coded , but we must recognise that we cannot affirm in fact, we have limitations, philosophical, mathematical, physical, we can just imagine, have intuitions. It is beyond our simple human understanding. But the universe and what we know actually can show us the roads, I see spheres everywhere lol, for me it is the choice of this universe , they seem foundamental, why I don t know really , but when I see the nature, we see them, the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids....I consider in my model the deformations also important for these quantum 3D spheres, like an intrinsic Ricci flow in function of codes in these series, the other Tools that I utilise to formalise these 3D spheres are the Hamilton Ricci flow, the topological and euclidian spaces, the lie derivatives, lie groups, lie algebras, the Clifford algebras ,the poincare conjecture ...it is not easy this formalisation but I evolve each Days. I have invented an assymetric Ricci flow also to explain the unique things , maybe in the smaller spherical volumes of these primordial finite series having the same number finite than our cosmological finite serie of Spheres. This number is important and the space disappears when we apply a decreasing of volumes and increasing of number from the central biggest sphere. I beleive strongly that this universe generally is simple, the details complex but simple in the generality.

A thing important for me even if this sciences Community is divided is that the best past thinkers considered a kind of creator, like Einstein who thought in a god of spinoza, I see a Little bit like that in respecting this determinism, we can have faith and respect the pure determinism of our reality. Here is the list of these thinkers who considered a kind of conscious infinite creator, Einstein who said that God does not play at Dices, Planck, Tesla, Newton, Heisenberg, Maxwell,Galilei, Lie, Godel, Cantor, Rieman, Poincare, Lorentz, Fermi and so more , it seems that when we study the generality of sciences and search answers in philosophy and sciences , this truth that we cannot define appears like evident, we need something to code, transform this Energy. I respect the thinkers who don t consider this but I beleive that without this parameter, infinite potential, it is more difficult to encircle these transformations matters energy.

ps lol thanks for my English, I don t learn it but I have improved it with the time in Reading and translating , I must imporve my grammar, so I will buy a book.

Friendly

Steve,

One imagines that, if the primordial field is gravity, and if the density of our entire universe were concentrated in a Planck volume, that the field would explode outward with motion whose positive kinetic energy would equal and balance the negative potential of the gravitational field, what Feynman calls "the free-lunch model", so that the universe comes from zero total energy. I find that a very fruitful model to derive today's world from. Of course one must appeal to God to create that event, but I have no problem with that.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James,

I should have been more specific. Instead of saying

'There is no problem with the math of the Lorentz transformation..."

I should have said:

'There is no problem applying the Lorentz transformation..."

Like you, I am generally unhappy with the derivations of Lorentz, which is absolutely necessary for special relativity. Because I cannot put graphics in a comment, I invite you to look at page 9 of

[link:vixra.org/pdf/1812.0424v1.pdf]Everything's Relative, or is it?[/link]

There I have reproduced a flow graph of Lucas and Hodgson showing up to 30 derivations of Lorentz, all of which have some problem in my mind.

Since I pick on Susskind a lot, I will quote his derivation of Lorentz, particularly his statement about

"the requirement that the speed of light is the same in your frame and my frame.."

followed by

"Whatever the relationship between the two frames of reference, it must be symmetrical."

Both of these statements are wrong from a physical perspective (although of course they match Einstein's assumptions). They are geometry-based and ignore gravity.

You say (4th paragraph of excerpt)

"Both observers see that same wavefront (and measure it with respect to themselves). They both measure it as C."

I disagree with this. Einstein says it is true because he had to do so to make things 'work'. But first, one cannot measure the one-way speed of light, period. Second, if one assumes a local ether as the gravity through which light propagates [as I do], then the moving observer (would) see C-v as the speed (if it could be measured). Even Einstein says so in his Relativity in 1952 in his analysis of his [faulty] simultaneity detector.

So I disagree with your 5th paragraph: "Regardless of the magnitude of the v, the moving observer measures (the speed of light) as C."

There is a way to test this. Einstein clearly states an observer can never measure his speed from within his frame. In the same reference I linked to above, on pages 41,42,43 I have designed a 'velocity detector' that makes a different prediction from relativity, based on my energy-time theory versus Einstein's space-time symmetry theory of relativity. So it's possible to see who's right. Sadly there is very little interest in experiments that could prove Einstein wrong.

As for time dilation -- in Einstein's unphysical theory, it follows from application of Lorentz. In my energy-time theory it follows from the increase in inertial mass [shown in your eqn(27)] of kinetic energy, so that the moving inertial mass resists acceleration of the restoring force that all clocks (based on harmonic oscillators) have, and the clock slows down.

I hope my response makes sense to you. I appreciate the effort you put into clarifying things.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for evaluating what I wrote about the derivation of the Lorentz transforms. I was rereading my message about an hour ago. That excerpt was from a ma reply I wrote to someone who requested my view. I think what i wrote should be rewritten for future use; however, what amazes me most is how very often when rereading my posts, I see obvious typos and worse. I do write a lot and am very active on the Internet; but that is not an excuse. Sloppy work weakens the communication. I apologize for posting that message without first proofreading it.

In appreciation,

James

P.S. I was Jim until I joined the Internet in 2001. I used my formal name James. Reading James felt odd, even maybe uncomfortable. However, 19 years have passed and I have comfortably become James. Now Jim seems odd to me.

When we met near Castle Rock you were still Jim, but it's easier to do searches if we use only one name online. Ed

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Ed,

I see typos in my message here. I think that I am paying a price for not wearing reading glasses. Clearly I need to. Thanks again. I will read some of these other essays for a while with reading glasses on.

James

Hello,

It is exactly what I beleive about the origin of this universe and a kind of deeper logic Before this BB and inflation, this infinite eternal conscious , this energy that we cannot define has concentrated in a sphere , the central cosnological sphere and after transform and codes this energy in matters energy and create motions, oscillations and so create this universe in expansion in distributing the particles coded. That continues fruthermore, this conscious energy continues to code and transform this energy beyond our understanding and create still codes , informations, particles, the evolution seems important, what I find relevant also is that this conscious energy is everywhere but transformed in this central cosmologicsl sphere in my model. It is intriguing philosophically speaking. This balance seems essential, the entropy negentrypo, heat cold, photons cold dark matter, matter anti matter, order disorder, electromagnetism gravitation, we need a balance for the emergences of our reality. The zero total energy can be this balance with heat also and we can see it at zero just due to a difference with the heat and cold and so coming from this energy of consciousness. I asked me a simple philosophical questions, if this thing exists, a kind of God, why it has created this universe ? maybe simply this eternal infinite consciousness was alone and that we create a thing in improvement, the potential is infinite and it gives us an incredible hope considering this Project....It is also the meaning of my theory of spherisation, the optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere, we are inside a physicality still Young and in improvement...

Regards

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

Thank you for answer. I read your essay and references. I found only the same cause of the problem, which has been creating paradoxes and conundrums for 100 years, i.e., presumption that Lorenz length contraction, time dilatation etc is real.

You wrote: "I believe your paper confuses the Doppler 'apparent length contraction' with Lorentz length contraction."

Answer: Nothing is confused. The Lorenz length contraction, time dilatation etc is apparent. Lorenz transformations are correct and work well. They make it possible to calculate the real value from the measured apparent value or predict the result of measurement at high velocities.

You wrote: "They are paradoxes because the equations are simple, but the ontology is unrealistic."

I agree - the ontology is unrealistic if it is assumed that the measured or observed values are not apparent but real.

Good luck in contest

IlgaitisAttachment #1: Time_Dilatation_Real_or_Apparent.pdf

Der Edwin Eugene,

You wrote an enjoying, interesting and provocative Essay, despite my ideas on special relativity are different from your ones. To understand this point, it could be useful stressing that I did not like the answer that Susskind gave to your question about the meaning of "seen from the stationary frame". In my opinion, the key point is that the law of velocity addition permits to write a SOLE Lorentz transformation between the stationary frame and the frame of the "kiddie car". In other words, the final velocity obtained through the law of velocity addition "makes glass walls" the walls of the train. Thus, now the observer in the stationary frame needs no more to see the "kiddie car" through the eyes of x'. Instead, in physical language, the observer in the stationary frame sees the "kiddie car" through its proper eyes by using the final velocity obtained through the law of velocity addition in a SOLE Lorentz transformation.

In any case, I enjoyed in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

    Dear Christian Corda,

    Thank you for your kind remarks, and for analyzing the issue. I like your answer versus Susskind's but there are other issues than the velocity addition law at stake. An essay is not sufficient to treat the complexity of SRT, but this example gave me a chance to focus on the ontology issue, which I am becoming convinced is overdue some focus. I just read Michael Dascal's essay and found very good insight into the issue.

    I read your essay and thought I had scored it, but that was not the case so I've remedied that. As you know I feel that your QNM is original and potentially agrees with some work I have done. Your model is probably too complex to be appreciated in an essay. I hope that my future work brings me closer to your QNM model.

    My warmest regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    I like the solid mathematical foundation embedded within this approach; I too watched those relativity YouTube lectures that were incorporated within this paper; however, I have a fundamental disagreement with the thought experiments themselves that lay at the foundation of relativity and that told at the start of those lectures.

    Dear Edwin

    I wasn't saying that SR was simple but that it was simple compared to Lorentz's theory of local time where Einstein got the notion of Lorentz transformations and also its 'simple' until we try to incorporate it into other theories.

    I also don't think its simple as given Minkowskis reading of it as a geometrical theory it suggests that the spacetime manifold is a given and there is no Now. In other words the ontology of it is complicated (there I agree with you). One theory that is able to take this into account is Causal Set Theory which does have a Now and remains Lorentz invariant.

    I don't understand what you mean by saying that GR is not a Lorentz invariant theory. The whole point of Einsteins work on gravity was to make it consistent with Lorentz invariance. For example, the spacetime manifold is constructed with a Lorentz signature (-,,,). This is -geometrically speaking - what he meant by a generally covariant theory.

    Also GR is 'simple' since the geodesic equation is basically Newtons second law with zero acceleration. That is a point particle moves on a straight line (geodesic) when there are no applied forces and its covariant acceleration is zero. Of course there is more to the theory than this 'bare' simplicity.

    Also I don't think GR is the whole story, for example, Goedel showed that certain solutions include closed timelike loops and this ought not to be possible for a true theory of gravity. Moreover, both Connes theory of gravity and String theoretic gravity have corrections to Einsteins field equations.

    Best regards

    Mozibur Ullah

    Dear Ilgaitis,

    Thanks for responding to my reply. The beauty of fqxi is that free exchanges of ideas and opinions by people who study the issues benefit us all.

    It's a pleasure dealing with reasonable people who can discuss something they see differently.

    My best wishes,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    I think you raise a number of important issues in your essay, which are often glossed over in the teaching of special relativity. First of all, you point out that time dilation---and, in fact, other relativistic phenomena---can be derived within a framework of absolute space and time. This is true, even if it's often not well appreciated---the best analysis is, I think, due to John Bell (him of the theorem), in his essay 'How to Teach Special Relativity'. There, he shows that, for instance, length contraction can be explained by noting that the shape of the electromagnetic frame of a moving charge will no longer be spherically symmetric, but rather, flattened in the direction of movement; and thus, a rod, made from 'atoms' whose spherical symmetry is no longer given, will contract in length. Similar remarks apply to electrons circulating around these atoms---their period will change in accordance with time dilation.

    This is today sometimes glossed as the 'Neo-Lorentzian' interpretation of special relativity; as is proper for any interpretation, there is no experimental means to adjudicate between it and the 'Minkowskian' interpretation in terms of four-dimensional spacetime; hence, it indeed requires a decision to opt for one or the other. (Things do, however, get more difficult once one moves to full-fledged general relativity.)

    Another point is that in teaching special relativity, one generally assumes a sort of 'view from nowhere'---imagining one could 'observe' what happens in, say, moving train cars as it happens. But the events within a train car moving past us would look nothing like the naive predictions made by applying the Lorentz transformations---indeed, there are many intriguing optical phenomena attached. For one, flying past a planet at a high fraction of the speed of light, that planet would not look like a flattened pancake at all, as the Lorentz contraction would naively lead us to expect---indeed, it would remain looking perfectly spherical, but, curiously, rotated as compared to the orientation we would see flying past it at lower speed!

    This is due to the so-called 'Penrose-Terrell rotation'. The reason for this is that, essentially, an object moving past an observer at a high enough speed gets 'out of the way' of light emitted from its (relative to the observer) backside, so that such light can reach the observer after all. Thus, what we would see when peeking through the walls of a moving train would be very much more complicated than what the simple Lorentz transformation might lead us to expect.

    In the relationship between a theory and the world, there are then two sources of potential failures of fit, if one is not sufficiently careful---one, in the observational consequences; and two, in the ontological consequences. Naively, having just learned special relativity, one might conclude that one sees a Lorentz-contracted object moving past, which means that reality needs to be described in terms of a four-dimensional geometry; neither of which is right.

    However, I am not sure I see the connection with my remarks to Xerxes Arsiwalla in his essay, and the notion of how distributional systems may overcome Gödelian problems. After all, the sort of systems you discuss here are staunchly computational---and thus, subject to the same issues of undecidability, etc., as any other model of computation. Xerxes seemed, in his essay, to be saying that there is a notion of distributional system that outstrips these capacities, but I'm still not sure what exactly is meant by that.

    Anyway, I wish your essay good luck in the contest!

    Cheers

    Jochen

      "Electromagnetic frame of a moving charge", above, should be "electromagnetic field", instead.

      Dear Jochen,

      Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

      Yes, material objects made of atoms may or may not contract. If this type of real contraction of atom-based material occurs and applies to MM experiments, I've no problem with that, in principle.

      In relativity, it is 'space-time' that is changing. Space is getting shorter and time is getting longer. I don't really believe in space. Einstein: "there is no space absent field". If one takes away the field, there's nothing; no-thing. Space is an abstraction - it simply doesn't exist! It is an attribute of the field, not a separate "thing" - space does not contract.

      The Lorentz contraction operates on space; the entire space contracts under Lorentz, not just the material object. This is incompatible with (3+1)D and is inherent with 4D. It is not optional, it is built into the transformation on 4D space-time geometry. It is unphysical in the extreme. So although I find some sort of shortening of material arms reasonable, length contraction means shrinking space, That's what Lorentz does, it shrinks space (in one direction).

      I question the energy time (3+1)D force-based 'shortening' of material; but I don't reject it. I reject the special relativity (4D)-space-based length contraction.

      You say, "This is today sometimes glossed as the 'Neo-Lorentzian' interpretation of special relativity; as is proper for any interpretation, there is no experimental means to adjudicate between it and the 'Minkowskian' interpretation in terms of four-dimensional spacetime; hence, it indeed requires a decision to opt for one or the other."

      This is what I mean when I say "One must make metaphysical choice commitments to ontology."

      I would not call this 'Neo-Lorentzian'; it is not Lorentzian.

      You also say "Things do, however, get more difficult once one moves to full-fledged general relativity."

      I have recently interpreted a 98-year old exact metric solution to Einstein's field equations in a way compatible with the above. The previous interpretation has been obscure and confused. You might find it interesting: A Primordial Spacetime Metric.

      Thanks again for your comment. I will re-read yours and comment on your thread.

      My warmest regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      After taking a critical look at your reloeaded essay, I will tell you elsewhere my radically new alternative to what not just Susskind is teaching. Following your hint that only gamma and m=gamma m_0 are experimentally confirmed, I share your opinion that there was no reason to abandon the good old notion of ubiquitous simultaneity. I am now suggesting to modify neither t and x nor c but v.

      Unfortunately, you merely mentioned that but not in detail in what your theory differs from SRT.

      Being just an engineer, I cannot see why you felt obliged to add your perhaps not experimentally founded assumption concerning a consciousness field instead.

      Anyway, even without understanding your C-field, I consider your essay by far a more relevant one than those who are defending QM. While Kadin is perhaps more courageous, he does not question the SRT that Susskind is teaching.

      I strongly agree with your praising FQXi as an excellent and urgently needed forum.

      Thankfully,

      Eckard

        Dear Eckard,

        Thank you for your gracious remarks. I am pleased that you now find (3+1)D ontology reasonable. I did not expand on ways that my energy-time theory differs from SRT for two reasons. First, the 9 page limit, and second, I am submitting papers to peer reviewed journals and most of them insist that the info not be published prior.

        In case you missed it I refer you to my reply to Ullah on 27 April @ 05:18 above. There I address the belief that the Lorentz transformation applies everywhere. I argue that this is not the case and that it does not even apply in areas of SRT where it is assumed to do so. I am considering expanding this comment into a paper.

        You make the valid criticism that my rewritten essay mixes apples and oranges. I retained the analysis of SRT while adding 3 pages on a 'not experimentally founded' theory of consciousness. You are correct; in many ways it weakens the essay. I did so with the following thinking:

        My first fqxi essay was a theory of consciousness, at a time when it was not 'cool' for physicists to discuss consciousness. Today, a decade later, up to 25% of the essays discuss consciousness. It has apparently been recognized as related to physical theorizing. And on 13 April on his thread, Christi Stoica remarked to me that he had recently heard "three unrelated known people working on the hard problems of consciousness and supporters of panpsychism, mentioning gravity (...) as a possible physical field that could be associated to consciousness." Then on the next day Stephen Wolfram published a paper claiming 'a new fundamental path to physics' that I believe is better interpreted as a model of 3D mechanism by which the brain couples to the consciousness field. So I simply decided to use the opportunity fqxi offered to 'strike a claim' and did so, recognizing that it detracted from my SRT essay.

        I don't think that I have changed many minds in this context. SRT is like politics and religion; it is almost impossible to change the minds of believers with mere facts. I had seen SRT argued for 10 years on fqxi and I had ignored it. Two years ago, working with Steven Kauffmann, I suggested that we review what we agreed upon about SRT before going much deeper into General Relativity. It was this in depth review that made me realize how much was wrong with SRT.

        It's a vicious problem. I am an old physicist and have been outside the establishment too long, so no one listens. But as Smolin has written, it is impossible inside the establishment to achieve anything new that threatens core beliefs. I see no alternative but to use platforms like fqxi to lay out the problem.

        Thanks again, and I wish you good health.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Will we remain unheared? Let's concentrate on just two compelling core arguments:

        - While abundant defense of SRT is exclusively based on increase of mass with v, there is no valid evidence for what not just Michelson rejected.

        - While the past is unchangeable, the future is open to influences in principle. Causality impies:In reality there is a border but no extended state between past and future. Fourier transform introduced redundancy by ignoring it.

        By the way, did you get aware of an essay that convincingly removed at least one of the many paradoxes that are still related to modern mathematics and physics? Do you keep Kadin's prediction for possibly correct?

        I guess and hope, your health and my health will benefit from shelter at FQXi.

        Eckard Blumschein