Deciding on the nature of time and space by 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.

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 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 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 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

Hi Edwin, you really did address Leonard Susskind. It was a pity he would not be sidetracked by the issue of sensory perception, However that is completely understandable as he would have had a set syllabus to teach. Yes it is about rods and clocks and measurements but unless hands on, sensory perception is involved in the reckoning of the measurements. The observers are assumed by me to be human as depicted by stick figures. In Special relativity, each observer has their own reference frame or present slice of space time. If sensory perception is thought about, it could be said that each observer makes their own selection of potential sensory information from the environment immediately outside their position.Going further one could say each observer generates their own unique present experience using the sensory input received. which is not the material happening.

Rather than thinking about objects travelling at the speed of light, it is helpful, at least to me, to think about thunder and lightning. 3 observers, one under the storm, one not far away say 1 mile and one 5 miles away will experience the storm differently. More delay in experience of the thunder the further away From the lightning event. That causes air expansion, creating pressure waves in the environment. Multiple observers will generate heard sound from the pressure wave when received at each observer location. The simultaneity of that lightning (the actual spark) and sound wave potential sensory information formation is undeniable. But it is not experienced as simultaneous by all observers. The same sort of thing is going on with the train and kiddie car but the sensory information is light waves travelling much faster than sound.

EMr ('Light') reflected from the kiddie car to the eyes of the driver will be used in generation of an observation product that shows both driver and car maintaining their positions relative to each other (ignoring slight vibration).'Light' from the kiddie car, received by the standing observer in the train will be used to generate an observation product showing a slow kiddie car appropriate speed.'Light' reflected from the train moving through the station at very high speed,(there was no mention of acceleration from zero velocity in the lecture) will be used to generate a product, by platform observer, with the train seen moving at extreme speed; 0.9c. The kiddie car has to be travelling at least 0.9c according to that observer, for it to remain inside the train, moving with it. The extra kiddie car motion is insignificant compared to 0.9c. Do not add the 0.9 cs.

Dr Eugene.very precise and well illustrated work.Rated you accordingly. Thanks for the concept of neural networks and mapping.can cognitive Bias be key?please read my take here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.Thankyou and all the best in the contest.