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

        Hi Peter,

        Thanks for your kind words and for making the effort to analyze my essay. Yes, I follow your 'discrete' argument. It was your discrete model of plasmas that caused me to take you seriously years ago. But that doesn't apply here. The 'glass wall' is not to be taken seriously; it simply means I want full transparency for all frames. Instead of 'glass walls' on the 'boxcar', we can remove the walls entirely, and frame the argument in terms of a 'flatcar' with no walls. Einstein's inertial reference frame is a mathematical device that does not imply 'enclosed frame'. Ignoring wind pressure, the juggler can juggle on a flatcar as easily as in a boxcar. This removes the c/n argument of your fourth paragraph; it is not relevant to the problem.

        As for your mention of 'ultimate' absolute system frame at the center of the universe, it suffers from the same problem as 'distant simultaneity' -- it is not measurable, hence not fact-based. That is why I use 'local absolute' in relativity arguments. I believe the 'local absolute' is always the local gravitational field through which light propagates, and which makes c+v measurable. The local gravity in the station [ignoring earth's rotation] establishes local rest [only perfect at the N and S poles] while the rail car and kiddie car do not generate their own gravity fields and thus are moving through the ether, hence see c+v, not c. This violates Einstein's 'constant c' hypothesis and invalidates his theory, as he said ether would do.

        Susskind is very bright, but, like everyone else, fails to see things that haven't been seen for 115 years.

        Like Smolin said: "to learn relativity is to experience a transition from one way of mentally organizing the world to another.". Once people change to relativity, they no longer apply commonsensical ideas of reality. That's where the problem lies.

        Thanks again for putting effort into understanding my essay.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Eckard,

        I certainly agree 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is open, but suspect you meant I declared another 'TND' wrong??

        Peter

        Eugene. I studied your essay (for a long time) and I basically agree with your conclusions. It appears to me that a theory that depicts a physical (ontological) result with a mathematical (creating and functioning) fundamental that correlates with the empirical physical measurements - from the smallest Planck action to the the visible universe - would solve many(all?) of the of the major problems of physics. The Successful Self Creation process/results introduced in my essay "Clarification of Physics..." appears to meet those criteria. In the theory I show how the processing created the variables/relationships of space, time, mass, speed, time that scale up to become the variables/relationships of the universe and its contents. It also creates the mathematics that can be used to explain them and their fit in the processing. In addition the process creates Quantum Mechanics, Planck action(s) and unifies QM, Planck Action and Relativity in one theory. Almost sounds too good to be true? I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John Crowell

          Edwin,

          I have taken to printing out essays that I read, making it easier to really digest them. I have always valued your opinion and am gratified with your comments re my effort. You never really know if you have hit the mark on each contest effort until community members really take the effort to read them closely. Thanks for your interest.

          Jim Hoover

            Dear Edward,

            First of all, it is good to meet again, I read already your comments before you participated in this contest, and I fully agreed and thank you for reading my essay.

            While reading your essay I made the following remarks:

            Special relativity is indeed not as simple as it seems, because it analyses an emergent phenomenon, as you say the "ontology" of space and time in this framework. The ontology of simultaneity in an emergent phenomenon becomes ALWAYS the relativity of simultaneity. I tried to escape this with the introduction of the Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS), the stationary frame is then the conscious agent, that can be seen as the reference of reference.

            The velocity of light C, is for the conscious agent one of the borders of his reality, the maximum speed that the radius of his SSS can expand, so it doesn't mean that C is the ABSOLUTE velocity. You say: " Moving frames with arbitrary velocity is meaningless unless a universal velocity exists to which they can be compared.". Here you approach the same problem we all are struggling with "The Reference of Reference" You are right when you say: "moving reference frames are not accessible by us".

            I can only fully agree with you when you say "It views time as the intuitive common-sense notion that it is NOW everywhere in the universe, all at once, with one moment passing into the next moment; moments in time spanning the entire three-dimensional space." This is exactly what I mean to say that the real NOW is an unapproachable moment in Total Simultaneity.

            "Assignment of properties is essentially epistemology; the nature of the world is ontology. Assigning properties to the wrong ontology does not make sense" Bravo.

            When you say "Two different mathematic-based structures can co-exist for quite a while, but only one of the two ontologies actually exists." I should like to add that the co-existence of these two mathematical based structures is a coexistence in the PAST, they were thought of in the past, both ontologies were existing in the past and the future will bring a new ontology because "existing" is only the unapproachable NOW.

            Dear Edwin, I really liked your essay and I didn't understand the first 1 someone gave you, but I see you are getting already the value it deserves, and I added now my personal valuation.

            Best regards and good luck.

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

              Hello Mr Klingman,

              I enjoyed you relevant essay about this special relativity and the general frame if I can, say , I have shared it on Facebook,

              good luck and best regards

                Hello again, Edwin:

                I took some time to review you article "Everything's relative, or is it?" I see clearly now that we are absolutely on the same page ontologically. I have focused on quantum mechanical issues and was unaware of the issues regarding relativity that you raise. SR clearly allows different frames of reference (FORs) to synchronize their clocks if their relative motions are zero. If we assume a stationary FOR, we can therefore define a universal time frame throughout 3D space. 4D spacetime and 3D space time are distinct conceptual models with distinct mathematical descriptions, which you have detailed. I was interested to learn that within the 4D spacetime ontology, length contraction is implied, but it is not empirically observable! We have both argued that a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right. We both agree that physical reality must be defined with respect to its actual physical framework, or more generally, to its context.

                I hope you take a closer look at my essay. If you overlook my lack of appreciation of different ontological interpretations of relativity, you will find a deeper framework that unites our contextual conceptual interpretations. By including a positive ambient temperature as part of the context, I eliminate quantum paradoxes, establish the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as a fundamental physical law, and allow an objective definition and arrow of functional complexity. A positive ambient temperature is empirically justified because absolute zero is an idealization that does not exist in reality, and the universe as a whole has an ambient temperature currently equal to its 2.7 K cosmic microwave background.

                Thank you for expanding my horizons. I hope I can return the favor.

                Harrison

                  In response to comment on Fabian and Matthews thread I responded:

                  Probably I would say that the complexity density of a given pattern will correspond to a certain 'degree' of consciousness. The most 'dense' or complex patterns exist in the brain where we find the highest degree of consciousness.

                  You agree that a consciousness field is not unreasonable and ask whether this field is already described by our physical theories or whether one needs to add a new one. Charmers thought that we needed a new one and thought that physics 'left no room' for a new field.

                  In 2006, when I was lead to the idea of a new field, I asked myself how this field could interact with matter. If I thought 'raise my arm' I wondered how the thought actually exerted any force on matter to start the bio-chemical-mechanical process. It took less than an hour to derive a formula for the force of a consciousness field on matter, based on a change in the local field, that was analogous to the electromagnetic force on charge. Similarly, the motion of mass induced a change in the local field, thus inciting awareness of the moving matter. We don't really want to be made aware of matter that isn't changing. Only active flows in our brain should incite awareness.

                  It actually took a while for me to realize that the equation I had worked out by thinking the problem through in all it it's aspects was actually written down in 1885 by Oliver Heaviside based on his formulation of gravitational theory in analogy with Maxwell's electrodynamics. The more I analyzed the situation, the more every aspect fit together.

                  In other words, I did not sit down one day and think, "maybe gravity is the consciousness field'. Instead I worked out the simplest equation that exhibited all the properties of consciousness that I thought consciousness must have and then found out that the equations described the gravito-magnetic field of Heaviside that also are the 'weak field' equations derived from Einstein's general relativistic field equations. In other words, I was dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that gravitomagnetism fills the bill perfectly.

                  Also in 2006 Martin Tajmar measured this C-field in the lab and then 2011 Gravity Probe B detected this field. Eventually, after everything fit perfectly in place, I accepted this idea, and it has provided the most comprehensive understanding of consciousness that I have come across.

                  Along the way I realized that physicists, always projecting structure on the world and thinking that this actually describes the world, had misunderstood the 'weak field' equations of relativity. To simplify the non-linear field equations they simply linearized the equations to describe the 'weak field'. Since the equations are no longer self-interactive, they believed the field is no longer self-interacting. This is foolishness. Changing the equations to simplify the calculations does not change the nature of the field. A self-interactive field remains self-interactive. It only means that one must iterate to restore self-interaction to the calculations. Also significant is that it is not mass in the equations but mass density. Physicists again foolishly think that the gravitational field is only significant for large masses. False -- it is density that drives the gravitomagnetic field circulation, hence electrons and atoms induce changes in the local field.

                  The book I wrote describing this theory of consciousness is "Geneman's World", ISBN-13: 978-0-9791765-5-5, in 2008. My first FQXi essay in 2009 was on the Physics of Consciousness but only ten years ago it was not cool to talk about consciousness in physics. I am quite pleased to see that this topic is now 'respectable'. Believe me, it wasn't.

                  Warmest regards,

                  Edwin Eugene Klingman

                  Dear Wilhelmus,

                  Thanks for this response. I thought that we were in essential agreement on several points, but when different terminology is used one can't be sure. I'm pleased that we converge in many places as we appear to. After all, we're talking about pretty big questions that have been asked for a long time.

                  I'm glad you liked my essay. Thanks again for studying it and commenting.

                  Best regards,

                  Edwin Eugene Klingman