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.
Deciding on the nature of time and space by Edwin Eugene Klingman
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
Dear Jeffrey,
Thanks for your feedback. I believe that my point about ontology being beyond the issues that fqxi prescribed makes it on topic. In principle, my energy-time theory can distinguish between space time symmetry of special relativity, but the political fact is that there is no interest in doing experiments to test special relativity. Lacking determinative proof, I believe that one must choose an ontology to interpret a theory. It's my opinion that relativity is applied to whatever ontology is convenient, and I don't believe that's legitimate. SRT excludes acceleration and rotation, but is commonly extended into these domains for Hafele-Keating and Michelson-Gale experiments, which I believe is not kosher.
Obviously one cannot do any definitive analysis of SRT in nine pages, but, after reading a number of essays I decided to rewrite my last three pages to make a somewhat different point. While it's an important point, it does probably weaken the essay.
I actually read your essay several times but could not decide what to say to you, so I said nothing. In your essay your asked:
"Would we want a robot to solve Physics?"
My dissertation asked "How would a robot physicist function?" assuming the ability to make measurements correlated with the robot's actions on its environment. The key factor is the use of pattern-recognition algorithms to partition the data into categories that represent 'properties' of the system, which establishes an epistemology, but not an ontology.
In short, I did not assume consciousness, but simply designed a machine to sort data obtained from the real world by interacting with the real world, in an attempt to show why the 'unreasonable effectiveness of math to science' applies.
Thanks again for your honest feedback. These contests truly are valuable.
Best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Steve,
I completely agree with almost all of your points. Thank you for writing them. I certainly agree that no one can prove these issues of consciousness. It is more a question of what explanation makes the most sense and is compatible with the largest domain of which we are aware. For me, including all of my conscious experience over many years, a consciousness field was the only thing that made sense. Never did it make any sense that dumb material objects could arrange themselves (or be arranged) in such a manner that they would suddenly 'become aware'.
The question then became how the field would interact physically with the material world. Applying Occam's razor, things went in a direction that continually rewarded me with positive insights and never ran into paradoxes that would discourage continuing the approach.
Along the way I decided that much of today's problems in physics derive from physicists projecting math structures onto physical reality, useful in specific domains (like qubits) and then believing that these structures had universal application. Once people write enough papers based on such a new structure, it becomes part of the catechism.
Anyway, I'm glad that you find the concept useful. Since Feynman said that "more things can be known than can be proven", I am likely to spend my remaining years trying harder to know what I'm talking about than to prove what I'm talking about.
Warmest regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Thanks Professor Klingman,
I agree also with your Words, all seems a question of deterministic convergences between maths, physics and philosophy after all it seems to me humbley. The universe and its generality shows us maybe Concrete roads. A thing important for me is this evolution, and I have remarked that these fields like main origin and these oscillations, frequences, resonances, correlated with the strings have a philosophical problem considering this evolution. Why we evolve , and this consciousness also like the complexification of biological Creations ? the real question is there, why this universe has created an evolutive line time ? it seems important to analyse deeper this evolution because why this thing , this kind of infinite energy Before this physicality has created this evolutive physicality ? why this thing has not created directly in the instant with a specific oscillation a perfect harmonised universe with its consciousness, we see quickly that the fields like main origin has a problem foundamental , because the evolution is not taken into account, if we evolve there are reasons and it was maybe the only one solution for this infinity to create a physicality in improvement with its fractalisations of energy and the codes of evolution. The evolution seems to be forgotten by the sciences Community in maths and physics. It seems an essential, why we have stable systems like the atoms and moleculs and why this evolution for others systems like the biology, the consciousness, this and that? Where is this evolution so encoded in our quantum series and its mechanics ? it seems important to understand this. My theory of spherisation, it is this in fact, the evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with these quantum coded 3D spheres and cosmological sphere, we are inside a physicality in improvement and optimisation, why I don t know, we can extrapolate many philosophical intuitive ideas , maybe this thing was alone, I don t know, maybe we create it this paradise , I don t know really, I just discuss without affirminmg, but a sure thing relevant is this infinite eternal potential beyond this physicality and if this thing is an infinite eternal consciousness, that becomes very fascinating and the Word is weak. We are like Tools of optimisation due to this consciousness evolving and these complex Environments, maybe this consciousness is the most important thing after all like a pure tool of evolution and optimisation, it can even accelerate the universal process. On Earth also this consciousness is essential and can permit to optimise our evironments and its interactions, but unfortunally we lack of a global unified universal altruistic consciousness on this planet sphere Earth. Maybe the keys of governances must be given in the hands of pure universal altruists conscious of truths, but not easy due to our past and bad habits, we have created an odd global system Dividing instead to unite . But the hope exists.
Regards
Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Ontology could be the theme by omission. Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are about what cannot be known and your essay is about limits of the knowable, two sides of the same coin. You convinced me that your essay is of the theme of the contest. As a reader, how your essay fits into the overall theme is not important. My essay is more about the why and your essay is about the how. A robot could be a tool in finding objective data about the nature of the Universe. A robot would be useless in answering why you want objective data in the first place. In short, your essay is on a journey, while my essay is still looking at the map to figure out where to go. My essay is in a completely different tone and direction, so I can see why it is not everyone's cup of tea. Thank you for reading my essay and I understand why you did not comment.
As for an absolute time frame, Galilean relativity is the basis of momentum, symmetry and conservation laws. Einstein relativity expanded on the existing framework of Galilean relativity for a simpler general solution to problems others worked on in bits and pieces. We could we solve problems currently solved with Einstein's relativity using an absolute time frame, but it would be far more complex and would not yield new insight.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schmitz
P. S. I see that they are blocking robots from giving comments. Robot opinion would be important in this topic.
Dear Edwin,
You mentioned "inertial mass m = γ m0" and, given the relatively recent controversy over relativistic mass, I wonder what your view on that is.
Best wishes,
Vesselin
Dear Vesselin,
I am not sure what the 'recent' controversy is, but there have been objections by some to the idea of relativistic mass for a while now.
My view is that inertial mass m = gamma m0 is the most accurate relation in relativity. It is a kinetic energy aspect of mass that has real consequences, whereas the mixing of time and space by gamma is unphysical.
I've read your essay several times. It seems to put great weight on Minkowski's 1908 interpretation of the MM experiments. My own interpretation, like that of Hertz, upon whose theory Einstein based his 1905 paper, is that light propagates in local gravity, which has effectively zero 'ether velocity' in the MM lab. Nor do I believe length contraction of space occurs. Time dilation can readily be explained in (3+1)D ontology, based on relativistic mass. The only length contraction that appears in measurements is the Doppler-based 'apparent length contraction', and possibly some material-based contraction under acceleration.
Considering your employment, which I assume is based on full agreement with Minkowski, I decided there was little to be gained by arguing any of these points. Over the last two years I have found out in no uncertain terms that believers in special relativity can apply it to any problem, although I believe that they mix ontology when the apply it in acceleration and rotation situations. Thus I did not rate your essay, as that seemed inappropriate.
What is your belief about relativistic mass? I looked again and did not find it in your essay.
My best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
The message did not reach, I am sending again.
Dear Edwin,
Glad to read your work again.
I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.
While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".
I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.
Warm Regards, `
Dear Edwin,
I think relativistic mass is an experimental fact - see:
1. (PDF file): On Relativistic Mass - Appendix by the Editor to A. Einstein, Relativity[/I] (Minkowski Institute Press, Montreal 2018) - a volume with five works by Einstein (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/einstein.html)
2. Mass does increase with velocity (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/relmass.html)
Above I wrote "I think"; you also write "my view is". If interested in what should be done when there are so many people with so many different views of the same world, you could have a look at my latest reply on my essay's page.
Best wishes,
Vesselin