Heinz,

Having re-read your essay, I now better understand your comment.

You conclude your essay: "The only reality there is, is a timeless present."

I won't say that you are wrong. Back in the day I got very excited about Marshall McLuhan, Hayakawa, and languages. I certainly like your relation of Absolute non-contradiction to orthogonality.

But, aside from cocktail conversation, I'm not sure where one goes with this. Using metaphor, it's as if your universe is somewhere between the all encompassing connectedness of a cross between an LSD experience and solipsism.

I'm all for both, but on normal days I have numerous 747's fly over my ranch on the VOR radial descending into SFO, and I don't think that happens under LSD or designed by solipsists.

My essay pushes (3+1)D-ontology, also called presentism, and it is a functional model that approximates the reality you describe, but far more useful, in my opinion, than going overboard about the reality of time. I do thing category errors are worthwhile indicators of heretofore unseen error, and I believe you have applied it well toward QM, but I'm not sure categories are good for much else.

My two cents.

Thanks again for reading my essay and commenting. I did enjoy your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

I appreciate your feedback and agree it is off beat. I couldn't stop thinking about your essay and wanted to share some previous work.

Reformulation of QM.

Basis of Pauli exclusion principle: The superposition of exp(180) identical wave functions that are positioned outside one another (the basis of the Pauli exclusion principle).

Wave particle duality: Wave function collapse of the Schrodinger equation can be represented on a unit circle. The collapse point at 1 is a particle and the circle itself is a wave. With Et/H=1 for the gravitational component, space is defined by R=hC/E and time is around the circle of radius R. The ratio is R/t=C.

This reformulation is not complete until we understand our perception of nature. Our brain is based on electromagnetic energy shifts associated with the electron's orbit of the proton. Specifically the shift from quantum number 2 to quantum number 3. But this shift is further modulated by probabilities. When light enters the brain, our brain understands the probabilities involved with the shift. They are fundamental to nature and fundamental to perception. Memory is based on the following:

Probability associated with light energy received (ke)

Proton-electron wave function that collapses every unit time

Probability associated with light energy deficit stored (ke)

When light is received, it is opposite and equal the light energy stored. This is recognized as a match and a probability equation fires (The Feynman absorption equation). If the match is perfect, P=1 fires. This has a specific meaning. "I see that frequency of light". If it is not perfect, it fires as a probability and we see hues. The brain learns and stores based on storing probabilities in molecules based on feedback from the Feynman equation.

The measurement problem:

Many don't understand the double slit experiment; specifically why does measurement cause interference to disappear? The brain expects a match. When the match occurs, it says "I see that" and shuts off further information. This means that the brain is an efficient detector. We are built out of these detectors.

The brain becomes part of the system through evolution. One can think about the brain/observer as a peephole into reality that proceeds us since our perception is several billion years late.

Why does nature do this? I suggest that information processes that separate energy "pave the way" for us to follow. We evolve by "logging into" this aspect of nature (become the observer). We evolve through a "red tooth and claw" system that preserves information. But this would not occur without a way of storing and reproducing the system. Again:

Probability associated with light energy received (ke)

Proton-electron wave function that collapse every unit time

Probability associated with light energy deficit stored (ke)

But this time, the energy deficit is stored in a molecule. The molecule evolves into DNA. Over time it is what Bohm called an implicate order. Enfolded, we see a molecule but when it unfolds it produces information that reconstructs the body. It has done this billions of times and we evolve into a powerful perception system that looks back and wonders:

Where did energy come from and why is E=hv? Why can mass receive energy and move (velocity)? How can time be the same throughout nature and at same time allow velocity associated with time changes? What is the size and future of the universe? Where did the energy come from that expanded the universe? Is everything really based on simple circles (waves and particles)? The questions go on and on....discussion goes on and on.....no one will ever agree. That is the system. Its purpose appears to be "ongoing creation".

Nevertheless. We owe society more than we are giving them. I recall promises that we will "have a unified theory by 2020". Now many of the FXQI's essays now say never.

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I first of all appreciate your energy based LT as a key explanation. Thank you for making me aware of FoP. Having looked into Thyssen's "Conventionality and Reality" I was disappointed because nobody seems to deal with the undeniable difference between past and future and belonging causality. In the end you and me will certainly converge in support of Alan Kadin's reasoning up to a prediction that is at least as unwelcome as is your essays.

My time is since Covid19 more limited. In previous contests you provided accurate summaries of valuable contents over many essays while omitting criticism. Instead of showing due gratitude for your strong support of my current essay, I looked for a minor discrepancy. You wrote on p.1: "... absolute space means that a preferred local frame exists." Are you aware of my unfinished comments on Cusanus?

My best recommendations for you, Alan, Bee, and all other supporters

Eckard

    Dear Edwin Eugene,

    thanks for trying to unterstand my approach! Of course I'm no more naive about being able to convince you as you are to convince academic physicists...

    In your reply to my essay you say: "But, aside from cocktail conversation, I'm not sure where one goes with this [my ideas]."

    Answer:

    Away from the fairy tails of physical modeling back to laws of nature...

    or

    Away from trying to answer questions back to giving answers causing novel questions.

    again, good luck

    Heinz

    Dear Eckard,

    I'm very pleased that you appreciate energy-time (3+1)D versus 4D spacetime. I also am glad that you are now aware of Foundations of Physics. It was founded by t' Hooft, who, I believe, is more open to questioning orthodoxy than many Nobel laureates. And I was not aware of your comments on Cusanus. Can you point me to them?

    I too have been surprised that the causality aspects of multiple time dimensions are mostly overlooked, or at least largely undiscussed. As Smolin noted, after learning relativity people mentally organize the world in a new way.

    I do think that we are gaining traction and more commonality in the 'neo-classical' approach that some of us seem to be converging to. I also think that you have played an important part by examining significant math issues such as the Fourier analyses you have focused on. Students are so overwhelmed with absorbing the flood of math and physics information that they have no hope of spotting troublesome aspects. And many, for one reason or another, never find time or inclination to wonder about such things, and anyway lack a platform to do much about it. FQXi has certainly been valuable by allowing us, year after year to refine our work and place it before our peers.

    I have learned a lot from your essays over the years, and your erudition, and am pleased when you find mine worthwhile.

    My best regards -- take care of your health in these crazy times.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Edwin,

    I'm glad to finally see your essay. I am puzzled by your statement: "In relativity, in the frame of the station, we observe the railcar; and we cannot observe the interior." If we are a stationary observer at the station, and the railcar has glass walls, surely we could observe and measure the kiddie cart moving at 0.994c as easily as we could observe and measure the railcar at 0.9c, by using rods and a clock within our stationary framework. Measurements define our empirical description of the system with respect to the station's time and space framework. Our empirical model includes the observation (empirical law) that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

    How do we go from an empirical model to a conceptual (ontological) model of physical reality? In my essay, I assert that physical reality is contextually defined by perfect measurement with respect to a system's fixed time and space framework (I also include ambient temperature, which SR and GR take to be zero kelvins). A perfect observer must be in equilibrium (i.e. at rest) with respect to that framework. I believe this describes your ontological model of physical reality with respect to absolute time and space.

    However, I also see no conflict with SR. SR's conceptual model asserts that perfect empirical measurements by a perfect inertial observer provides complete and objective information for the system's physical reality. The Lorentz transformation allows transforming the complete and objective description as would be described by a different time and space framework, such as the rail car. From the rail car's framework, the kiddie car is moving at 0.9c. The empirical descriptions may differ between frameworks, but the information they contain is conserved by the transformation, so the information and the physical reality it describes is independent of the particular time and space framework.

    You correctly state, in a response to Heinz Leudiger, that "the observer can establish his own frame velocity." But you then state that this is impossible in SR. I find this confusing, based on my interpretation of SR as stating that the empirical description of physical reality (but not physical reality itself) explicitly depends on the observer's space and time framework.

      Dear Harrison,

      Thanks for reading my essay and thinking about it. You've misunderstood several points. I'll start with the last, since I think it hints at where the problem lies. When I state that "the observer can establish his own frame velocity" this is true in the energy-time theory in (3+1)D ontology. It is not true in the space-time special relativity theory in 4D ontology. This is a difference between the predictions of the two theories. This is described in detail in my reference 11, "Everything's Relative, or is it?".

      If the observer can measure his own velocity, this contradicts SR, because the observer believes his own frame to be at rest. Einstein specifically states it's impossible.

      You state that the empirical description of physical reality explicitly depends on the observers space and time framework. You are correct, but the question is what is the space and time framework -- is it the 4D ontology of SR spacetime imposed by the Lorentz transformation, or is it the (3+1)D ontology of energy-time theory? The recent papers in Foundations of Physics claim that this question is unanswered because it is underdetermined in SR. I think it's time to try to answer the question. There is only one correct answer; 4D or (3+1)D ontology. They are not both possible.

      Your first paragraph seems to imply that you believe that the rail car can be accelerated to 0.9c and then the kiddie car can be accelerated another 0.9c. I'm uncertain how to address this, beyond suggesting that you might wish to reread the paper. We clearly have a mismatch in our understanding. It is clearly not possible in a framework of absolute time and space.

      I hope this clarifies some of the confusion; I would be happy to answer more questions.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      I will read some of the references you cite and educate myself better. It is absolutely non-sensical to state that the kiddie car can be accelerated another 0.9c. This mixes up frames of reference. I believe that physical reality is contextual, and you can only discuss ontology from a single fixed context. As described in my essay and its references, the idea that you can arbitrarily change the context underlies numerous quantum paradoxes (and I assume relativistic paradoxes.)

      From the fixed context of the station, I believe the kiddie car can be accelerated up to (but less than) an additional 0.1c and that this is empirically measurable. It is only when you apply Lorentz transformation to transform that description relative to a new context, that you would describe acceleration of kiddie car by 0.9c, but this is comparing apples and oranges and it leads to paradoxes and physical violations.

      Thanks for your response. We agree about the 0.1c max velocity for the kiddie car. It is the Lorentz transformation that introduces the relativistic paradoxes, makes the ontology 4D, and allows up 0.9c velocity in addition to the 0.9c of the rail car. There are other unphysical consequences of Lorentz as well. In the (3+1)D ontology the paradoxes vanish, the inertial mass relation (gamma) is preserved exactly, and clocks still exhibit 'time dilation' of the proper amount. There's more, but too complicated for a comment.

      The frames of reference are 'cartoon worlds' that convert one universal (3+1)D frame to multiple 4D universal frames and drastically change the physics. The paradoxes flow from these changes, confounding intuition. The better you understand relativity, the harder it is to 'unlearn'. If you are transforming this into your own scheme, there may be additional complications. Thanks for making an effort to understand.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hello Edwin,

      We are in complete agreement that a system's objective contextual physical reality must be defined with respect to a system's actual context. We cannot arbitrarily change or choose a system's actual context.

      The Lorentz transformation does not change a system's ontology; it is a transformation of description from one context (inertial framework) to another. What is interesting and significant is that the Lorentz transformation conserves the information about physical reality, even as its description changes. I think your objection is that this leads people to conclude that we can arbitrarily change a system's context. I also strongly object to this idea, but for a different reason, and this is where our physics diverge.

      The Lorentz conservation of information and the consequent conclusion that we can arbitrarily change a system's context are based on an idealization that is unattainable in reality. In addition to an inertial reference frame, a system's context includes ambient temperature from which the system's ontology is defined. SR and GR define a system's context at zero kelvins. Absolute zero can be approached but it can never be reached. In the case of the universe, the ambient temperature is the cosmic background microwave temperature, currently at 2.7K.

      There is no transformation that conserves a system's ontology at one ambient temperature to another and back again. Physical reality must be defined with respect to a system's actual context and ambient temperature, and we cannot arbitrarily change or choose a context of convenience. A system's ontology can only be defined with respect to its actual physical context, as we both agree.

      Harrison

      Hello Edwin,

      We are in complete agreement that a system's objective contextual physical reality must be defined with respect to a system's actual context. We cannot arbitrarily change or choose a system's actual context.

      The Lorentz transformation does not change a system's ontology; it is a transformation of description from one context (inertial framework) to another. What is interesting and significant is that the Lorentz transformation conserves the information about physical reality, even as its description changes. I think your objection is that this leads people to conclude that we can arbitrarily change a system's context. I also strongly object to this idea, but for a different reason, and this is where our physics diverge.

      The Lorentz conservation of information and the consequent conclusion that we can arbitrarily change a system's context are based on an idealization that is unattainable in reality. In addition to an inertial reference frame, a system's context includes ambient temperature from which the system's ontology is defined. SR and GR define a system's context at zero kelvins. Absolute zero can be approached but it can never be reached. In the case of the universe, the ambient temperature is the cosmic background microwave temperature, currently at 2.7K.

      There is no transformation that conserves a system's ontology at one ambient temperature to another and back again. Physical reality must be defined with respect to a system's actual context and ambient temperature, and we cannot arbitrarily change or choose a context of convenience. A system's ontology can only be defined with respect to its actual physical context, as we both agree.

      Harrison

        Dear Harrison

        Again we completely agree that definitions must match a system's actual context.

        When you say that the Lorentz transformation does not change a system's ontology, that is tautologically true -- it is impossible to change ontology, which is physical reality. But it does assume a different, incorrect ontology. One cannot 'mix' time and space as Minkowski famously claimed in a (3+1)D ontology. The Lorentz transformation mixes time and space, and this is simple impossible in a universe with local preferred frame and universal simultaneity. Lorentz produces "length contraction" which does not physically occur. People speak as if the MM measurement arms are contracted, but Lorentz doesn't contract material, it contracts "space". Every point in a moving frame is contracted, not just the points in the material arm.

        The Lorentz transformation is between two 4D geometries. It has, in my opinion, nothing to do with information, per se. Information involves recording energy-based changes in physical systems and code books for interpreting the record: "one if by land, two if by sea" is meaningless without the context or code book. There are other associated aspects of relativity that, while not actually part of the Lorentz transformation, completely throw away inter-frame kinetic energy, an impossible and rather foolish thing to do.

        You say you think my objection is that 'this' leads people to conclude that we can arbitrarily change a system's actual context. I'm not sure what you mean by this. My objection is that special relativity is based on a wrong model of reality. The 4D- 'block universe' is simply not real; reality is 3-space and one universal time. The energy-time theory does yield the gamma(v,c) associated with 'relativistic mass', and consequently does lead to clocks slowing down, as increased mass/inertia resists the acceleration of the oscillator restoring force and hence the oscillator/clock mechanism slows down physically. In my opinion this 'time dilation' is the main reason that people have accepted the many paradoxes of special relativity for over a century. There is now an alternative explanation for time dilation that produces exactly the correct inertia-factor gamma. This is significant, and should be cause for rethinking the paradox-ridden theory. Energy-time theory does not produce length contraction.

        I am uncertain of the consequences of your theory, and have not understood it well, but I am quite certain that my statements about Lorentz and the differences in 4D and (3+1)D ontology are correct. I have worked on this theory with quite capable physicists for almost three years, and they have yet to find any math error. Interpretation is in the mind of the observer, and I am sorry to say that after 50 years of dealing with a 'mentally reorganized' world (Smolin), some octogenarian minds have become almost hardwired. Very bright PhD engineers find it much easier to grasp energy-time theory than do physicists. The better one understands relativity, the harder it is to unlearn it. There are all the other psychological factors at work as well, and for academics there are career issues.

        You speak of "conserving a system's ontology". Ontology is just a fancy word for physical reality. "Conserving" reality is not an option, or even a meaningful concept. One can misinterpret reality, which is what special relativity does, but reality 'conserves' itself without our help. I do not think that reality is synonymous with "actual physical context", as context to me means 'outside' of the system. Reality is inside, outside, everything. And it is not 4D. Lorentz only operates between 4D geometries, so Lorentz transformation is inappropriate.

        Particle physicists are more than enamored by Lorentz. It is built into their Lagrangians at the fundamental level. Why? I believe it is because Lorentz guarantees that relativistic mass is properly taken care of (by the gamma factor) which is paramount in particle physics, whereas the length contraction that erroneously comes with Lorentz is of no significance in particle accelerators.

        You say that Lorentz is a transformation of description from one context (inertial framework) to another. My point is that Einstein's inertial frame is a 'cartoon world' that, by introducing multiple time dimensions, destroys universal simultaneity, which is the 1D in (3+1)D, and thus presents the physicist with a false description of reality. I believe the empirical fact of clocks slowing down has caused physicists to accept these cartoon worlds because there seemed to be no other explanation of time dilation. Now there is another explanation. It does not 'disprove' special relativity, but it does provide an alternative theory to be tested against relativity. And it gets rid of the Lorentz-based paradoxes which have bothered so many for so long.

        Thanks again for thinking about these issues. It is much easier simply to go with the flow.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin

        I just read your essay which is quite interesting. I now understand that we share a similar view on how physics should be done. In your essay you mention that Einstein demolished the absolute frame but in fact this is not so. You may wish to read the book written by Wolfang Pauli from 1958, about relativity. There you will notice that Einstein tried several times to eliminate any trace of the absolute frame, without any success. To my knowledge the absolute frame was deleted from textbooks just to avoid conflict with relativity theory.

        I definitely agree with you that there should be one ontology, but as you have realized theoreticians do not care about this, most of them deride interpretations in physics as philosophy. Aware of this, I drew a line to separate ontology (which is a philosophical term and works well in this field but is not very welcomed in physics) and physical understanding.

        Anyway, I am glad you call my attention to your work, it is well thought and written. I wish you the best in the contest!

        Regards

          Dear Israel,

          I knew from previous essays that I found your views very simpatico. I am extremely pleased by your comment, and also wish you the best.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin Eugene,

          There are in particular two authorities who are still guiding me: Shannon who distinguished the closed past from the open future and Popper who also declared the future open. So far I feel the only lonely one who suggests calculate as if they were stupid but be careful and ready to not ignore causality including the natural reference of time.

          Moreover I got the impression that several voters have an eye on intuitionism e. g. when supporting Flavio De Santos or Peter Jackson who declared the TND wrong. Although the ideal border between past and future is not directly measurable, there is no present state in between. Because a frequency analysis of measured data cannot include future data, mathematicians were definitely wrong when they denied R with only positive values of elapsed time for a mathematical reason (Hausdorff).

          While Einstein's Relativities are not my primary concern, I admit that I did never swallow some logical flaws. Your attribution of LT to energy and Alan's explanation of deflection of light are more appealing to me. The attached files are unfinished.

          My humble judgment may give you a boost.

          Yours,

          EckardAttachment #1: 3_Cusanus.docxAttachment #2: 3_Cusanus_vs_SR.docx

          I found the relevance of Noson Yanofsky's essay such that I reproduce my comment here:

          You tackle a very real question of persistence. In a response to Jochen you say: "I am not pushing subjectivism. But not because I believe in structure."

          This is compatible with my belief that physicists project mathematical structure on the world and then believe that physical reality has this structure.

          You say "the usual lesson one learns from the Ship of Theseus is that objects do not have persistence through time."

          You also discuss measurements in special relativity. My essay deals with this in detail. I hope you find it interesting. My conclusion is, I believe, relevant to your essay. Relativity is 4D, and structures are frozen 'forever'. The alternative, (3+1)D ontology, sees universal time (the present) spanning the spatial universe. The energy-time theory conserves energy in the present, and thus lends structure to the reality of the present, but it is a dynamic, energy-based structure, compatible with the Ship of Theseus.

          I believe this provides insight into the problem of 'persistence'.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Ronald Green's essay also has interesting related discussion of the nature of time...

          "However much we try,we cannot imagine a world that has no time." This is similar to saying we can't imagine a wold that has no change.

          The nature of change in physics is based on energy, which is the complement of time, but that brings 'persistence' into the picture. Noson Yanofsky's essay treats persistence, whether in people, ships, nations, etc which retain identity over time while the pieces constituting the entities undergo constant change.. He too places the enduring or persistent 'structure' in the mind.

          I believe that physicists project (in their minds) mathematical structure onto the world, then come to believe that physical reality actually has that structure. Some unlikely structures, such as 'qubits', taken seriously, lead to bad places.

          You observe that 'now', 'the present', has fuzzy edges and we don't know where it begins or ends. This was, more or less, the topic of three papers in Found. of Physics last November, that I treat in my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space. You observe that special relativity complicates this further. My essay analyzes special relativity's frozen 4D-ontology versus the (3+1)D-ontology of universal simultaneity across all space, which is the energy-time formulation of 'spacetime'. The conservation of energy in the present preserves most monetary structure, while allowing change from moment to moment.

          Whereas I agree with your observations about perceived or 'experienced' time as unique to each person, nevertheless, as you say, "we cannot imagine a world that has no (objective) time." As I do not believe we can capture the experience of time, except allegorically or metaphorically, I focus on the shared or common time so necessary to physics.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Ed,

          I have luckily not needed to ride the NYC subway or commuter trains, since the crisis began. And I am sequestered here in the 'burbs on a street that is a cul de sac on both ends, so there is low traffic and some freedom to move about. But I was on the front lines anyway. It appears my Dad was one of the first in the US to be infected, and he passed on Mar. 25, just a day shy of his 88th birthday.

          I'll check in by e-mail soon.

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          Dear Jonathan,

          I'm so sorry to hear about your father. Eighty eight is a long life, but we're never ready to leave.

          Warmest regards,

          Ed

          Hi Edwin,

          I'd almost given up on you! Excellent essay again, and brave, as you know the judges will be stony ground. Still, nicely put together and argued, and of course I agree with most. I know you won't mind discussion of the bits I don't, but first, full marks for stating we CAN'T VALIDLY 'MEASURE' FROM OTHER FRAMES!

          I'll re-state my own clear rationale for that as I suggest it's where your 'absolute' background needs 'completion'. We can't validly measure PROPAGATION speed from another system. But we CAN use pythagorus and lateral emission sequences to 'measue' "CO-ORDINATE" speeds, which CAN be c+v as they're only apparent, as the system itself (train) is also moving.

          That then means we have the LOCAL backgrounds we know exist; a LENS in motion, then ECRF, ECI frame, Barycentric, Interstellar (ISM), IGM, etc. And the key to the whole rationale is that each is "DISCRETE", i.e. mutually exclusive spatially and 'nested' hierarchically, so 'bounded' by the LT as a real 'shock' speed change mechanism. THEN I suggest your 'absolute' can make absolute sense in ALL cases!!

          Your glass window question was spot on because light does c/n in ALL glass, so light from the Bebecar changed speed o both entering and leaving the glass, by TWO factors each time! I know that's hard to grasp and retain but I also know you have the intellect.

          But that's just about content (not a valid scoring matter).

          Do think thet through and let me know if you struggle to rationalise it. I thought you had before but with so many essays such concepts are very hard to embed and recall!

          By the way on THAT model there IS of course also an 'ultimate' absolute system frame, but at the centre of the universe, so inaccessible.

          But well done. I confess I'd thought Susskind a bit brighter and braver than that. But I found his views on QM & string theory similarly limited. Do you think it may be the usual peer pressure from having to get paid by universities?

          Very best,

          Peter