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

    Hi Steve,

    I've seen your comments on other threads. You seem to be doing well. I thank you for reading my essay and for sharing it on Facebook.

    Take care of yourself my friend.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Harrison,

    I appreciate your investment in studying "Everything's Relative...". I thought we were basically in agreement on ontology, and am very happy that 'we're absolutely on the same page ontologically'. I think it is extremely important "a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right."

    As Israel Perez points out in one of his comments, to many physicists disdain ontology as 'philosophy' and shun the question. It is, as I think you agree, the major question: what is real?

    I will look again at your essay. I taught thermodynamics 50 years ago, but never worked deeply in the field, so it will take me some time to feel comfortable again in this area. I certainly agree with you that a positive ambient temperature should be part of the context, but I have not followed all of your consequences that follow from this. It is an important point, and I will look again.

    You have put quite an effort into understanding my approach, and I thank you for this.

    Good health to you and good luck in the contest.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thanks Jim. You really have written an exceptional essay this year, and I hope you do very well. I think it is the kind of essay that can win; beautifully written, very informative, and not overly controversial. I hope you win.

    I hope after you read my essay you will return and comment.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear John David Crowell,

    I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what's left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

    I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on 'flexible' C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

    On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the 'free lunch model' of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed -- therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if 'd' is a 'change operator' and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You'd be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

    One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the 'magic' of many current theories.

    I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    You are welcome , Yes I am better , I had many problems in Belgium ,I was in a big depression due to many problems, I have lost all the important persons, they are dead like my mothers due to cancer, my godfather a suicide and my grandmother and all this the last 5 years, I am alone without nobody ,more others serious problems and a difficult past also, but I am better, I have immigrated since 7 moths here in Finland, I live with Ulla Mattfolk, she tells you hello.

    I have evolved also about my theory, I learn a lot of maths and improve it, at the begining here on FQXi my English was not well, it is a Little bit better even if it is not perfect in grammar , and my theory like I said Begins to be better at my humble opinion, I will publish several papers this year in logic, I am invited too at several international Conferences, I must say that I fear, I dislike to present in front of persons lol but I must assume. Thanks for your nice message, I repeat but your essay was very relevant to read, I wish you all the best and take care also , be the force with you Jedi of the Sphere :)

    Friendly

    Glad things are working better for you. You went through some rough times. Tell Ulla hello from me.

    Those of us with new theories or models begin because we see problems and think that our insight can be helpful. But theories are complex things and it takes a while to 'work the bugs out'. In many cases the improvement over the years is quite visible. This comes from continuing effort and from invaluable feedback from our peers. God bless you and I wish you the best. Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:

    I'm glad you liked my essay. You say:

    "It's hard to argue that time 'exists' as a physical entity with one dimension, but it's an extremely useful concept."

    We agree that "the so-called time" was and is and will remain an extremely useful

    concept, and that it is hard to argue that it has a physical entity, simply because it cannot be

    proven that it has it.

    As for the experimental meaning of "so-called time" as "movement", it is not only

    important, but I think I have proven that it is a constant and uniform movement that man copied from the sun movement, for reasons of practicality in the design of the clocks. In no way is it a cyclic

    movement, and does not include the movement cycle count. On the contrary, the empirical meaning of

    "so-called time" is "continuous". The cyclic thing is a mistake that I think originates from the internal

    movements of the clock, in which there are many cyclic movements that are mechanisms like the

    pendulum that were designed in order to achieve the constant and uniform movement of the clock

    hands over the numbered dial.

    To measure something continuous it is essential to create units, in our case, the fundamental unit was given to us by nature. The Day, which is the constant and uniform movement of the sun from one sunrise to the next, which the Egyptians after a long process managed to divide into 24 hours ... In the measure of the "so-called time" at no time does it imply the count of the movement cycles. I repeat the movement is continuous, the hours are not parts of a cycle but the arbitrary divisions of a continuous movement, which can be divided because the "so called time" is a constant and uniform movement, no other movement could be divided in equal parts.

    We agreed that what is slowed down is not the "so-called time" but the clocks, the physical reason of such slows is the speed inertia and or gravity that slows the internal movements of the clock respect to the similar one on the earth surface.

    To the "so-called time" dilation I would call it slowing a clock or any other

    movement traveling at high speed and at a greater distance from the center of gravity, compared to the similar clock to the one on the earth surface.

    If we accept that the experimental meaning of "so-called time" is "movement" we are accepting that it is a physical property and exists as such, all physical existing things are in continuous motion in the universe.

    All the planets have different physical conditions, different gravity etc. so

    each place in the universe has its "called time". I think there is neither the "now" nor the "instant" I

    accept them as a reference to a very short period of the "so called time", this is continuous.

    You could read if you haven't already done it, my explanation of the paradox of the twins, I think it's the only physical possibility that this could be possible.

    I think I prove that Time is a measurement system

    I think I proved that Time is a measurement system, which was most likely unintentionally created by prehistoric man. This one exists only as long as man exists like all the systems he created. This system measures "so-called time" which is actually a constant and uniform movement. With units arbitrarily created by man as already I said.

    Thank you for Reading my essay,

    Héctor

      Thank you very much for your Words.

      I agree about the theories, they evolve and it is important to add and optimise our extrapolations, and also to study still and Always more the maths , physics and sciences to see a better generality. We search answers after all with humility inside this physicality like humble travellers from stars where our consciousness and knowledges evolve also. It is fascinating I must say, I cannot stop to search these answers, maybe the most important is to accept these limitations and accept only the proved things and make a difference with these assumptions mathematical, physical and philosophical that we cannot affirm in fact, it d be very odd and vanitious to affrim things not proved by experiments or mathematical proofs after all. This infinite eternal consciousness bless you also Professor Klingman, happy to know you , wish you also all the best for all, take care, friendly

      Hi Edwin,

      I wrote my essay to conform to the contest specifications. If you want to look at an actual article on my conceptual model, (which I hope you will) click here to download

      Best Regards,

      Harrison

      Dear Edwin,

      I have just finished reading your essay for the second time, and I must say I am impressed. I believe you are absolutely correct when you advocate focussing on ontology in order to make progress in physics. Be sure to read Israel Perez's essay as he makes some very similar points.

      As you may have noticed in Marts Liena's essay on the aether, where he quotes some work of mine on time, I also developed a time-energy theory seven years ago. It works best when there is a preferred frame - so in your essay example with the kiddie car in the railcar, my time-energy theory totally supports your observation re the stationary observer looking through glass walls.

      The support of ontology in developing physical theories is that we help dismantle paradoxes. The twin paradox is easily explained without resorting to using 'space-time' in the answer, as Einstein did.

      There are no time paradoxes in my theory, but it is best explained when an aether is considered as a preferred system of reference (borrowing that term from Perez). I liked your quote from Mermin "...the concept of time is nothing more than a convenient...device for summarizing compactly all relationships holding between different clocks."

      It is a concept I hold as well, as I believe in an infinitude of clocks, (a clock being any defined volume of space, each with its own individual tick depending on the embodied energy of that space).

      I am interested in the physicality of dimensions (as distinct from their mathematical being). I think I understand three dimensions of space, as that is the world I inhabit. However, I do not understand zero, one or two, or four or more dimensions of space from an ontological point of view. To my point of view there is only volume, down to the smallest of scales, and volume means 3 space dimensions. String theories propose multiple curled up space dimensions, (comes from the maths), but I have no idea what these can be, as in my humble view there are only 3 space dimensions, and anything curled up inside a volume must have some other property that defines it. I do not mind having other types of dimensions (time, temperature, pressure, energy, etc) as long as their meaning is made clear.

      I like your point "I am ever more convinced that many of our nasty problems in physics have very little to do with the issues on which this essay contest is based", which is also made by Perez.

      As my entry was my first ever FQXI essay, I tried to stick to examples of undecidability, computability and unpredictability, in my considerations of a TOE, although I do wander on to the philosophical time topic of presentism which I currently endorse.

      I am currently reading some of your previous FQXI essays and look forward to further discussions with you. Good luck in this one, your essay is most interesting.

      Lockie Cresswell

        Dear Edwin,

        I've been reading your essay and finding it of interest, have a few comments. I'll also rate it - btw, I'd appreciate it if you'd rate mine, as you said it was of interest, and it has only had one rating so far.

        You say that if time runs differently in different frames, being able to look inside the railcar at the small car would violate the principle of relative simultaneity. Firstly, one thing SR does not have a problem with is self-consistency. It's counterintuitive, like a lot of things (the Earth is spinning, but it doesn't seem to be). Whatever else it is or isn't, SR is self-consistent.

        And it's a description of the real world, including what we see, if you're prepared to calculate the light travel times.

        It's worth pointing out that all three things in the example - the station, the train, and the small car, have relative velocities. Any pair of them have a relative velocity. These three velocities don't add up in the expected way, but you could look through glass walls and see everything for that reason.

        The simultaneity aspect is even less related to what we see - the visible picture gives no direct clue as to when the event we see happened. Hence galaxies are seen as they were a long time ago. So what you see won't be affected by simultaneity issues.

        In answer to another point, I think the goal of physics is both a mathematical and conceptual description, and that the conceptual side is not axiomatic, but more like a visual picture. And it's very much part of science, and should not be relegated to philosophy. Some people tried to boot it out of science, because the conceptual side started doing very badly in the 20th century. But that wasn't its fault, we just weren't yet ready to interpret all the mathematics we had.

        Hope this makes sense, just my own opinion. Best regards,

        Jonathan

          Dear Jonathan,

          If by 'self-consistent' you mean that all,of the conclusions derived from Einstein's axioms agree with each other, then I agree. By inventing multiple time dimensions, one per frame, and providing a 'standard unit', c, common to all frames, he enabled the Lorentz transformation, a simple 4D group operation on 4D geometries. Not only is mass not considered in Lorentz, but Einstein, incredibly, resets mass to rest mass in every frame, an unphysical act if there ever was one.

          As for being a description of the 'real' world, recent articles in Foundations of Physics state that the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by special relativity. My point is that one must choose an ontology, i.e. reality. That is a theme that a number of authors support in this contest.

          As you mention, relativity only works with pairs, as this is the only way to define 'relative velocity' in a way consistent with Lorentz. Nevertheless, as Smolin states, once learned, relativists mentally organize the world differently. I think it's probably the fact that the Lorentz group, acting on only two entities, has an inverse [it's a 'group'] that will always get you back where you came from, that 'feels right' as there is nothing else I can see that feels right.

          You say that in the 20th century we just weren't ready to interpret all the mathematics we have. I believe that we projected math structure onto physical reality and mistakenly came to believe that reality actually matched the math, which, I believe, it does not.

          I do thank you for reading and commenting. If we're not challenged it's hard to make progress. I got rid of that ridiculous 1 someone gave you [i got one too].

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Hector,

          You say "We agreed that what is slowed down is not the "so-called time" but the clocks, the physical reason of such slows is the speed inertia and or gravity that slows the internal movements of the clock respect to the similar one on the earth surface."

          That's a key point, as I believe that 'time dilation' is the aspect of relativity that has had no alternative interpretation, thus convincing many physicists that relativity is correct, warts and all.

          Another point that I believe is consistent with you is that we experience subjective time but objective time is essentially a measurement. There is really no reason to expect that we can capture the experience of time with a clock, but it's nevertheless less necessary to make it objective if we want to use it in physics.

          Thanks for reading and commenting, and good luck in this great game we play.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Lockie,

          In your essay you note that Laplace's demon cannot collect all the required info "at a certain moment " as special relativity eliminates a universal present across all space. Yes, physicists seem to compartmentalize, using, at any given moment, only a subset of physics theories that support their current effort, yet defending others in other contexts.

          Your view of presentism in terms of "causal relations between energy forms (...) in the Now" matches my view.

          As for ether, I believe that light propagates as disturbances in the local gravitational field, while the gravitational field defines the volume of 'space', which is an abstraction. I agree with Einstein that "There is no space absent of field."

          Per your remarks on TOE's, in my opinion a TOE need not compute everything. Schultz's essay distinguishes between algorithmic patterns (essentially computable) and non-algorithmic patterns which do not place necessary limitations on knowability. I think Feynman said: "More can be known than can be proven.

          I think you misunderstood my Merlin quote. Our experience of time is real, not illusion, but we must objectify as measurements to be useful in physics. Nevertheless, Mermin's approach, in order to justify SR is absurd, in my opinion. But I do agree with your summary, that clocks read time as a function of their energy, not as a function of multiple time dimensions.

          What I like most in your above comment is your observation about volume, or 3-space, as real, with 1 and 2 dimensions of space being imagined. I agree completely, but haven't seen it stated that way before. Time and energy are complementary or dual, and necessary to have change. Energy, with equivalent mass, evolves in the Now, making things 'happen' in 3-space, as a consequence of being unevenly distributed. This addresses the problem of 'persistence' of local identities while pieces of persistent entities change from moment to moment (Ship of Theseus). I know that you're interested in gravity, so you might like a treatment of dynamic space: A Primordial Spacetime Metric

          Welcome with your first essay. You did address fqxi's topics nicely, while adding numerous insights that I found very interesting. I hope you find my other writings interesting as well. I scored your essay, so please remember to do mine.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Alan,

          You noted that I did not address general relativity at all. I did not think it fit in the very specific example treated in my essay. But I have recently provided a physical interpretation for a 98 year old metric solution to the field equations whose physical interpretation has been "obscure":

          A Primordial Spacetime Metric

          I think you might find it interesting.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Thanks Edwin,

          I appreciate the high score you gave my essay. I think you're right that the title was a mistake - I tried to make a point in the title, but titles aren't for that!

          I've heard you say before that SR has a separate time dimension for each frame, back in 2018. I think that's only one interpretation of it - same with what you say about relativistic mass. In my book I say that SR is like a Rubik's cube, it can be put into many different configurations, but it may be that only one of them leads to a better understanding.

          Relativistic mass is a frame-related effect, which means it's a viewpoint-related effect. So is relativistic energy. The same kind of effects are found in relational quantum mechanics, and in the documentary (the link is in my essay) I point out to Rovelli the similarity between RQM and SR, with those frame-dependent effects.

          It's also worth noting that in SR fixing a frame can bring matter's properties into existence. In my paper I point out that in QM the collapse of the wave function can also bring matter's properties into existence. No-one has pointed out this common ground between SR and QM, perhaps because it's so weird. I'm sure others have seen it, but I didn't for years - it was staring me in the face. According to my interpretation for QM, which I discuss with Rovelli in the film, state reduction fixes a frame (among other things), which shows that the same thing is happening in both SR and QM. Fixing a frame can bring some of matter's properties into existence.

          But returning to relativistic mass, a useful loose analogy is perspective. Matter can have 'observed properties', a bit like an object can have an observed configuration, and it depends on the viewpoint. So calling relativistic mass 'unphysical' is not necessarily right.

          The last point is about experiment. If you're questioning SR, it can't be ignored. Relativistic energy has been confirmed by experiment, and can't be avoided. And it's very like relativistic mass. And so has what you call the 'standard unit', c, common to all frames. There was one experiment with pions at CERN in 1964, that was a bit similar to your example with the station, the train, the small car. But with light being one of the three things. Neutral pions were made to travel at 0.99975c, and then they emitted photons. The photons travelled at c in relation to both the lab and the pions.

          Anyway, best wishes, and wishing you luck,

          Jonathan