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

    Eckard,

    You make a good point. After all, the attitudes to consciousness as legitimate physics concern changed in ten years. Perhaps attitudes to SRT will change as more info surfaces.

    I'm not sure what you're asking about Kadin. I disagree with some of his specifics, but generally agree that neo-classical field-based reality trumps quantum statistical interpretations of reality. I have been pushing this theme for ten essays now.

    The false assumptions and erroneous projections of math structures have produced a situation in which nothing really new has occurred for 40 years. At some point the dam will break. We are in very tumultuous times and lots of shibboleths are in danger.

    Covid19 will show many institutions do not work for the good of the people, but for their own agendas. It is the nature of entrenched institutions.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    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.

        Hi Georgina,

        Thanks for reading and commenting. I thought you would find relevance in some aspects.

        You note that sensory perception is involved with rods and clocks, but in relativity the measurements are imaginary, based on the Lorentz transformation of space and time.

        As you also note, simultaneous events that travel with constant speed are not experienced by all observers as simultaneous, depending on the position of the observer. The fact that not all observers agree on whether things are simultaneous is meaningless.

        You mentioned that "there was no mention of acceleration in the lecture." That is key to special relativity; it excludes acceleration, including rotation, and uses just 'slices' of reality to conclude things that contradict common sense. Any kinetic energy actually acquired in the acceleration phase is just "thrown away" by resetting the moving observer's velocity to zero and his equivalent moving mass to rest mass. But finally, as you say, do not add the 0.9c to 0.9c. By creating multiple time dimensions, one per cartoon world, Einstein created unphysical paradoxes.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Michael,

        I enjoyed your essay, and I found the following simple statement quite insightful:

        "Imagine a world without Measure, from the grocers, healthcare and to economics all human activity would run berserk."

        One tends to forget just how significant this simple procedure is to survival as a group. It probably also served as incentive for the earliest development of mathematics.

        You also note: "A Bias is a Tendency by an arbitrating Authority to lean towards a particular inclination when confronted with options / choices in decision making."

        On your thread Christian Corda called this 'politics' and this tendency is nowhere seen better than in special relativity.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Edwin, you wrote "The fact that not all observers agree on whether things are simultaneous is meaningless." Why?

        Take a simultaneous event, such as the sparking of electric charge that is actual (not seen) lightning and the air expansion causing pressure waves,(potential for observer generated heard thunder) .The reason for the observer's disagreement is it is not the Object reality, the beable happening itself, that is experienced but what is generated from the sensory input received. Necessarily different at different distances from the source event, due to difference in magnitude of transmission delay and the different speeds of 'light' and 'sound', (potential sensory data.) Einstein's explanation for the different presents of the observers is that they are experiencing different slices of the spacetime continuum.

        Hi Georgina, I think we're in agreement. Only observers at the midpoint between two simultaneous events will experience the sensory perception of the events as being simultaneous. Since it is generally a rare coincidence that one happens to be at the midpoint, most events will not be observed as simultaneous, even if, in Uni-temporal-Now, the events actually were simultaneous. That is why I say that the observers perception as 'non-simultaneous is not meaningful; most things will be perceived as non-simultaneous, whether they are or not. As you note about Einstein, relativists sometimes make a point of it as if it's meaningful that things are perceived as non-simultaneous -- it's not.

        I think that this agrees with your definition: "Present, now is the 'what and when' pertaining to products of observation. Experienced if an organism; produced and maybe output by an observing device. Unitemporal-Now is the foundational time, which is temporal expression of the entire configuration of existing things."

        FYI: In current usage physicists define "present" as the foundational time in (3+1)D ontology, while there is no Now in 4D-ontology. By changing the meaning of 'present' to the organism's experience, you will need to clarify terminology when talking to most physicists about this topic.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Let me translate the formal word shibboleth you used: "An old idea or practice which is no longer thought to be important". I fear you will not manage getting peer reviewers admitting that Einstein's Relativity is a shibboleth. Your reasoning cannot only be understood as: It is fundamentally wrong not just subtle. One cannot be a bit pregnant.

        While mathematics is in position to use arbitrarily chosen redefinitions of such elementary notions like the point for the pragmatic sake of elegant calculations, physics is not just a modifiable surface but relates to what we reasonably assume the objective reality.

        As I was forced to pretend believing in communism, I see teachers of physics in the calamity to contribute to the idolization of G. Cantor and Einstein.Intelligent students will increasingly decide to calculate as if unnecessary counterintuitive castles in the air were real but be careful and not believing in Santa Claus anymore.

        Eckard

        Thank you for your replies Edwin, and advice. I'm not trying to promote my ideas on your thread but trying to show that the different speeds from different reference frames are not such a silly idea. One observer experiencing events as simultaneous and another as non-simultaneous is them experiencing time differently. That Einstein understood it is to do with signal transmission is shown by accounts of his cow dream. But he does not extrapolate the idea to consider: what is observation? And what is an observer? They remain in Relativity as passive recipients of 'reality' (Present slices of spacetime). I agree there is a universal Now. But not with all of your arguments.Your essay does clearly set out your thinking though, and judging by the response to it you have hit a chord with many readers.

        Hello Edwin...

        Thank you for reading may essay, for your encouragement, and for the opportunity to establish a dialog to query your mental circuitry.

        As facilitated by FQXi essay and essay comment threads, interdisciplinary exchange is resolving conceptual conflicts resulting from discipline specific language, and as a result, I see a a convergence of seemingly incompatible concepts.

        Delighted to make a connection with computer competence.... i.e. your multi-discipline faculties are rare in the FQXi forum.

        Am still trying to get as many essays read as I can before the poll closes... but will get back to this discussion thread shortly after the 18th.

        Just scored you a 10...

        May your essay's rank rise on a tide of perceptual clarity.

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

        Hi Sue,

        Yes, interdisciplinary is good, and fqxi facilitates that. I too see some convergence occurring. Also, I see that consciousness has moved from being almost untouchable ten years ago to mainstream, if this contest provides any measure of this question.

        I re-read your essay and followed the Honeywell and black hole links, but the other links were broken for me. I wanted to be sure to score your essay, but I see that I did so on 28 April. Thank you for scoring my essay.

        My best to,you,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Professor Klingman, I have thought still about this consciousness.

        In fact , Nobody can really prove the origin philosophical, mathematical or physical of this consciousness. Nobody can affirm his general philosophy in fact , we have the same problem about the origin of our universe and about the foundamental objects at this planck scale. Why we exist, why we are, why this life exists and this evolution, why we are conscious and have a free will, why this matter and energy transformations? we don t know, we can just extrapolate with intuitions in accepting our limitations. It is not prohibited to Think fortunally and we discuss simply in accepting these limitations like humble thinkers,we can never affirm assumptions, we must prove but we cannot prove this consciousness and its origin. It is the same about God or about a mathematical accident from an energy to explain this physicality.

        Spinoza , Descartes, Kant , Godel, Cantor, Einstein , Borh, or others d say the same , we must accept these limitations in knowledges simply and try to complete this universal puzzle with determinism , we search answers...

          I have writen this also on the blog of FQXi about this consciousness , I spoke about your ideas also.

          This Hard problem of consciousness is indeed important and complex. Like told me Edwin Eugene Klingman, it is great that now we can discuss about these things , because in the past it was more difficult. The ideas of The professor Klingman are interesting about a kind of field of consciousness at this quantum scale, correlated with probably geonetrodynamics and points or strings and geonetrical algebras where the main essence is these fields. It is correlated with this infinite energy that we cannot define and this Gr and photons like main primordial essence, so it exists a thing that we cannot define oscillating these photons with strings,at this planck scale. And so the branes, strings in 1D and this Cosmic field create the geonetries, topologies, matters, fields and properties. I respect these ideas and if we have a kind of infinite eternal consciousness, so we can consider these fields of consciousness and rank them.

          In my theory of spherisation, this optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere and these quantum 3D coded spheres and the cosmological spheres, I see differently, I consider that we have mainly particles coded and so the philosophical general origing is not from these fields. I consider that this infinite eternal consciousness, and infinite energy is not an infinite heat but an infinite consciousness and this thing that we cannot define is beyond this physicality and it needs to transform and code the energy to create these particles coded. That is why the universal transformator in my model is the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this thing codes and transforms this energy in particles. I consider 3 main series of coded 3d spheres sent from this central cosmol sphere, one for the space and two fuels, the photons and cold dark matter. And when they merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields. We need a balance between cold and heat, negentropy entropy, matter anti matter,electromagnetism gravitation...If these finite series primoridal have the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, so the complexity and combinations are infinite when they merge. It become relevant to consider all the parameters of this merging. The consciousness so become relevant, because all comes from this infinite eternal consciousness but it is transformed and coded, so all can be conscious at its levels and the evolution is essential because this consciousness evolves inside the physicality due to biology evolving. In the past I thought that only the biological Brains can be conscious but now I tell me that all is conscious at its level simply because the main energy beyong this universe is a pure infinite consciousness for me. The evolution is essential I repeat to better understand this consciousness, it is fascinating I must say.

          All this becomes very philosophical and nobody can affirm the real secret of our universe and its origin, why we are, why we evolve, how we are created. I can understand that this sciences Community is divided and that all we are free to interpret like we want this physicality. A part consider that we come form an energy and a mathematical accident if I can say, others consider strings oscillating transforming this energy in a physicality, others Think like me in a kind of infinite eternal consciousness coding and transforming the energy in matters to create these topologies, geometries, matters, fields and properties. But nobody can prove their philosophies, it is beyond our understanding but when you study the generality of sciences, a kind of limited truth appears, we have something coding like a chief orchestra creating something. Einstein said that God does not play at Dices and he thought about a kind of God of Spinoza, in respecting the pure determinism of this physicality, this beleif has nothing to do of course with the religions. What I find important also is that all the best past thinkers considered this parameter, they were numerous , like if an evidence appears in studying the generality of sciences , like an evidence that something transforms this energy that we cannot define, here is the list and nobody can tell that they were stupid, they were the best, all they considered a kind of God with determinism, Einstein, Planck, Newton, Heisenberg, Tesla,Maxwell,Galilei,Godel,Cantor,Lorentz, Feynman, Fermi,Euler, Lie,Schrodinger and so more, why they considered this ? it is important to analyse this, they had probably understood a philosophical evidence, the others against can tell all what they want, it is like that, they thought about this and they were the best I repeat, maybe even it is essential to better understand the energy matters transformations. This consciousness so become a relevant parameter to analyse deeper, it seems that we come from an infinite eternal energy of consciousness, why this thing creates this universe, why we are conscious and in evolution, it is the real question in fact, what we create in fact ? we are Tools maybe of optimisation simply with this consciousness evolving and the Environments in complexification. In all case, all this is fascinating I must say, this optimisation evolution seems an important piece of this universal puzzle.

          Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

          Rating essays has always been difficult for me. If an essay keeps true to the theme of the contest is one factor, but sometimes reading other essays gives me a new view on what the theme means. Could one disagree with the Physics of an essay, yet still see the value of the work? There is an ongoing point battle and I as well as others have been "point bombed" with 1s. I never give out ones, but I do give tens after the long process of determining what a ten looks like is complete.

          An ideal review should not be about points or Einstein (sorry Albert), but the work as a whole. Perhaps not ideal my review is as follows.

          This essay takes the reader gently by the hand on a journey of ideas and presents how these ideas relate to the overall theme of the contest. The essay held my interest, but did not sell me on its viewpoint.

          Sincerely,

          Jeff Schmitz