Dear Edwin,

Once again thank you for your comments. I think we are generally on the same page regarding time but you would need to read my various writings which unfortunately I have never placed on the internet. I concur with Julien Barbour that we can dispense with time altogether, but this is still problematic because all of our theoretical frameworks rely on it.

I have a non self-referential definition based on energy, derived from the Einstein-Planck formula, that seems to give a better understanding of relativity, so long one assumes an absolute reference frame (aether) to accommodate momentum.

When I distill the ideas even further it is all about the interaction of matter with the aether. My matter particles have the property of (volume, spin, and charge) and my aether particles have the property of (volume and state). I have borrowed 'state' from John Conway's game of life, as having a binary meaning of 'alive' or 'dead' with respect to the 'state' of the aether particles neighbours.( it is quite involved requiring several rules that form the basis for my TOE). I have a well developed matter theory that I previously mentioned, which has great predictive power. I have been exploring nuclear physics with it and believe I can explain many of the mysteries of how various elements get their atomic structure.

I do not know of David Mermin's take on relativity, but I liked the quote you gave for the wrong reasons. Maybe we both misunderstand. But misunderstandings are good because they sharpen our reasonings if dealt with properly, just as paradoxes are good. It's good to know that both of us can get rid of all the time paradoxes with our respective energy-time theories.

There is one thing you may be able to explain to me re time. I have never understood why the concept of a tachyon (faster than c) means backward in time. My definition of time allows faster than c as a concept (but not for electromagnetic radiation), but nothing can travel backward in time. And I particularly do not like Feynman's take on antimatter - time symmetry, where a positron is an electron travelling backward in time.

Thanks for the link on your paper on the primordial spacetime metric, which I will read when I have finished 'Everything's Relative'

Keep exploring!

Lockie

Hi Edwin,

Well, what you say about the horse race is a bit like the Rubik's cube I mentioned, with many possible configurations. We try to guess which one is the most relevant. Experiment sometimes joins in the process - there are plenty of experiments that are open to interpretation.

But it's important not to leave experiment out, because it helps narrow things down a lot. If you look up 'experimental basis of special relativity' there's a page with links to many of the main papers, and if one is prepared to take those results onboard, I'd say you find that the central ideas of SR (though no doubt there'd be some disagreement as to what those are), are correct.

Most of the people who question SR are prepared to ignore a lot of data. Having said that, the surrounding ideas are far more questionable. Minkowski spacetime, for instance, I think is wrong, and probably untestable. And I think rather like you on simultaneity - to me simultaneity at a distance outside the light cone is comparatively meaningless. So I don't support established ideas for the sake of it, I think it's good to question things.

Wishing you luck, thanks for the conversation,

Jonathan

    Dear Edwin,

    As I expected, you proved again to be a very good at writing. I am happy that you try to challenge special relativity, there is no theory in science which should not be challenged. If some physicists use the cartoon ontology you criticize in the way you presented, so bad for them. The correct ontology of special relativity was explained by Minkowski. He explained why spacetime is four-dimensional, and why bodies are in fact four-dimensional, and how this makes it look like a length contraction, and also that the descriptions in various reference frames refer to the same spacetime, not to different nested cartoon worlds with many dimensions of time. You can use as a starting point Vesselin Petkov's essay, Minkowski spacetime - a no-go for objective becoming, because he discusses precisely Minkowski's spacetime. He gives some links to Minkowski's papers. There are many critics of special relativity, and I see you are making more serious efforts than many of them, so I would love to see your take on Minkowski's arguments.

    Cheers,

    Cristi

    Dear Christi,

    Thanks for reading and commenting in detail. As I note, SR is more complex than Lorentz, due to ontology of Minkowski. Lorentz doesn't act on 4D 'bodies' but on every point in space. I've shown 'apparent' length contraction [which is simply Doppler in (3+1)D space] in my ref 8.

    I've looked at Petkov and he several times states that Minkowski in 1908 based his claims on 'experiments', as if that makes it unquestioned. I believe, based on other experiments [Michelson-Gale] that light propagates through local gravity, in which case the 'ether wind' would be almost zero, far below the resolution of the MM experiments. Einstein said that ether would destroy his theory, and only ten years later Einstein believed in ether, and did so til his death. He stated that light cannot propagate without a field.

    Petkov multiple times references pre-1908 experiments as basis of Minkowski, which gravity as ether demolishes. He also talks about length contraction, which has never been directly measured or experimentally proved. Petkov believes experiments 'prove' Minkowski, but I have 57 pages of analysis of experiments in my ref 11 that argues otherwise.

    I believe my analysis of the velocity law [which many people, including Weinberg, deny] is novel, so that formed the basis of my essay. It is impossible in 9 pages to convince someone who believes in special relativity, but I have written over 100 pages in last year or so that might convince you, if you had time to read them. It's not as simple as it's made out to be -- one reason that Found. of Physics published 3 papers in Nov 2019 discussing problems with special relativity, and concluded that the 4D vs (3+1)D issue is under-determined in special relativity.

    You may have missed it, but I have recently derived 'clock slowing' [time dilation] in absolute time and space, yielding exactly the slowing predicted by relativity. That is the first alternative explanation in 115 years, and seems worth thinking about.

    For all the known reasons, my view is not welcome in academia, but I am completely convinced that most treatments of special relativity mix 4D and (3+1)D ontology in analyzing specific instances. That is not physically kosher, but it is the way it's been done for a century.

    Thanks again for advancing the discussion.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Jonathan,

    I enjoyed these comments, and particularly your last paragraph. In ref 11 I do analyze many experiments and find alternative explanations of them. I'm glad you're thinking about Minkowski spacetime.

    I believe the primary problem with special relativity is that ontology is ignored, and (3+1)D ontology is used when needed while 4D ontology is proclaimed throughout. I don't think this is legitimate, but that's what happens when ontology is ignored. I think that this happens whenever acceleration is introduced into relativity problems. In short, per Smolin, relativists 'mentally reorganize the world', and, once in this 'only two frames' mode of seeing the world, force results that may or may not have much to do with reality, but they toe the line. Sometimes the line is crossed, such as the law of addition of velocity preventing relative velocities greater than c, as happens at the LHC. In these cases one ignores relativity, but quietly, so as not to raise anyone's ire.

    Thanks again,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    I always read your essays with interest and follow the movement and development of your ideas on the basic problems of fundamental science, your original and radical ways of solving them. This is an unusually important conclusion for a future brainstorming session:

    聽"In current approaches the question of ontology (if it even arises!) Is often left up in the air; efforts are focused on mathematics. For those who believe that physical reality arises from mathematics, this probably makes sense. For the rest of us, physical reality (ontology) is a given, which we attempt to model with mathematics. This makes sense and has worked well for centuries."

    Here we have slightly different views on the movement of Mathematics and Physics towards PHILOSOPHICAL ONTOLOGY. But this is good. The main thing is to find a reliable single ontological basis for mathematics and physics. Yes, here, first of all, the problem of understanding space (the nature of space). To understand is to "grasp the structure." (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). Add: ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE. Philosopher Pavel Florensky is right: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." ... I give the highest rating to your ideas. Let's hope that we, all interested participants in the contests, will be able to assemble a team for the global think tank on the ontological problems of modern mathematics and physics. Notice that in the article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics Carlo Rovelli poses first the main ontological questions: "What is space?", and then the question: "What is time?" This is an ontology issue. But the ontology also needs to be pulled out of the crisis... The philosophical ontology requires extreme thinking about reality, about being... Let's remember how Menelaus caught Proteus in the network with the prompts of the "form goddess" Eidothei ... That is the task of physicists and mathematicians is to "grasp" the absolute (unconditional) forms of the existence of matter (absolute states) in their unity, to "grasp禄 the ontological structure of space and then its ontological and gnoseological dimension.

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

      7 days later

      Edwin Klingman re-uploaded the file Klingman_FQXi_2020_time_spa.pdf for the essay entitled "Deciding on the nature of time and space" on 2020-04-25 01:50:05 UTC.

      Hi Edwin,

      thanks for commenting on my essay Je suis, nous sommes Wigner!

      Your notion of a consciousness field (C-field) is something I've been thinking about for some time. I take it the C-field is what gives phenomenal form to our individual empirical experiences, and this physical field would go some way to answering the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness? In other words, the complex (3+1)D world of our waking experience, or say the presumed phenomenal world of a frog with its simpler CNS, would just be a complex perturbation of the self-aware C-field.

      A couple or three questions come to mind:

      1. Is the C-field induced dynamically by the mass flow--and its fluctuating gravitational field--in a neuronal network, such that at some point when our foetal brains reach a certain neuronal threshold the corresponding individual C-field arises specific to that individual physical entity?

      2. Or is the C-field a primordial universal field that is perturbed by matter flows/gravitational fields in general? Our individual neuronal network would then be an evolved physical system that uses the same universal C-field that we share with everyone else and all other sentient lifeforms.

      3. In terms of the feedback loop I can see how a particular neuronal pattern might induce its particular C-field configuration, but not how that C-field then induces a physical change in the neuronal patterning. How would the C-field produce fluctuations in itself that then effect the relevant changes in the neuronal mass flow? Does the self-awareness that arises in the reflection of the C-field and its neuronal patterning have a resonance in the field that then drives the neuronal patterns appropriate to it?

      This physical feedback mechanism would be important to ensure the C-field isn't seen as a merely ideal part of a substance dualism ala Descartes.

        Edwin,

        Mathematical relativity theory is a bit outside my expertise, but I was interested to see Wolfram's "hypergraph" theory - discussed a lot recently - brought in. It will be interesting to see if this "new foundation" of Wolfram works out.

        And thanks for the nice comment on my "Essay", which I revise here:

        https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/04/24/substrate-targeted-programming-stp/

        Philip Thrift (@philipthrift · Twitter)

          Hi Malcolm,

          Yes, the C-field gives phenomenal form to our individual empirical experience. It is the field that is self-aware, not the atoms or molecular systems moving in the field. It's aware of its existence and of changes in its local dynamics induced by local motion.

          It is a primordial field, here since the beginning. My equations do not describe how self-awareness 'works', but how the field interacts with mass, including the equivalent mass of its own local energy density. Deciding that consciousness must be a field (circa 2006) I looked at known fields for clues to interaction; F=qE and F=mG seemed to imply a new 'stuff' F=iC, and I rejected the idea of new 'stuff', i. Next the Lorentz force F=qvxB of the magnetic field on charge suggested the analogous F=mvxC. This turned out to have the interesting properties that I was hoping for, so I explored these. Turns out that Oliver Heaviside wrote this in 1883, so the C-field is the 'magnetic-like' behavior of the gravitational field, operating on mass instead of charge. If you understand how the magnetic field acts on charge flow and how moving charge induces circulation in the local magnetic field, you understand behavior that is 3D and complex.

          We know that the field exists (Gravity Probe B), but most do not realize that it is density that appears in the equation, and the density of an electron, say, is pretty high. The key difference with the electromagnetic field is that the E,B fields are uncharged, and hence do not interact with them-selves. The C-field has energy density, hence equivalent mass density, and thus interacts with itself. This is key to 'self-awareness' of the field. Changes in circulation are sensed and Lorentz-like forces are applied to local flows in the field. The universe is filled with gravitomagnetism, but the most interesting locations are those portions of the local field filled with dense biological complexity, whether living cell or brain. Here the constant flows maintain 'structure' including the type seen in Wolfram's graphs.

          I assume it's like riding a bike, once the field masters local control of one axon, the trillions of axonal connections are there to be sensed and steered. And the field effectively assumes shapes sustained by local flows in the brain. [On exceedingly rare occasions I have 'seen' the 'shape' of music!]

          In short, the behavior of this field is rich enough to accomplish the actions that we would want a consciousness field to possess. A major problem for Chalmers is that he thought physics is 'complete', and did not want to introduce new physical entities. The C-field has always been here, and is implied by Einstein's field equations, so we need not postulate new entities, only a new property, self awareness. The field is global and hence we don't have to wonder how one microtubule, say, in front of your brain can relate in any way to another in the back of your brain, or the trillions in between. Nor do we need ask how consciousness 'arose'. It was always here, but the complexity does evolve in Darwinian fashion.

          Hope this answers some of your questions,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Vladimir,

          We fully agree that ontology is needed to resolve epistemological confusions. As for grasping ontological structure, please note that I have updated my essay to address this issue. You might find the last three pages interesting.

          It's always a pleasure interacting with you. Take care of yourself in these crazy times.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Philip,

          Thanks for the interesting ideas of substrate-based programming introduced in your essay. As I note in my essay, I believe Wolfram's 'hypergraph' demonstrates how neural networks can form arbitrary shapes in 3-space and how these interact with a proposed consciousness field to yield 3D awareness in our minds. I think Wolfram is confused about his creation. It is not a new path to fundamental physics, but to mapping networks into arbitrary shapes.

          Good luck in the contest,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hello Ed!

          I've just looked back in on the essays and just downloaded yours. I'll get back again but have to say right off that you have made the most profound statement on SR that is the crux of the matter from which the contrived paradoxes issue. "However, Einstein provided each world with its own absolute time and space by assigning each world its own universal time dimension..." page 1 of 10.

          Which beggs the question; if SR is universally correct, then how can each world have its own universal time dimension? And this leads many to argue that relative simultaneity is universally no different that absolute simultaneity and just mathematically proven as measurement constrained not only up to light velocity, but AT light velocity.

          "Time stops at light velocity" is a mind crabbing headline, but not the whole story implied by Special Relativity. The other side of the coin is that light velocity is the observed limit because that is as fast as time can go. Physical connectivity need not be consistently conducted at any one single velocity. In reality, it cannot 'know' its velocity, only that it is everywhere, somewhere between nil and light velocity.

          So as you point out in your response to Klaas Landsman's excellent essay, a free particle (as a unitary field) could be theoretically determined in a model construct, but the manifold particle interactions globally must be treated statistically. And its arguable that a successful Quantum Gravity Theory must eventually accept that the unitary fields that globally interact are the gravitational amalgam of unit fields that each have inertial discretion by virtue of time seeking at what velocity it is operating. And that connectivity is everywhere in that unitary field, somewhere between nil and light velocity. Hence for the absolute velocity of light to be universally measurable suggests that SR is in reality correct, yet also that would necessitate that Light Velocity is the root exponential mean of a peak periodic velocity. Like Bilbo Baggins' memoir "There and Back Again" - time seeking it velocity of connectivity. Non-linear Time, in a spherical unitary field, each of every radii would be the root of the exponential change of rate of passage of time condensing energy to matter from gravitational minimum density at light velocity to a greatest proportional density relative to the quantity of inertially bound masse of energy. It is only in linear algebra that the exponential rate unit can only be used as the base, not the root. But in a unitary field the exponential change in energy density along any radii would be the root of all raddii as computed of any one radii to account for the quantity of energy required by density in diminishing spherical volume continuously in a spherical boundary.

          NOW! I can get back and enjoy the rest of your essay! Best of Luck jrc

            Thanks jrc,

            Hope you enjoy the rest! Good to hear from you.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin Klingman,

            I agree that special relativity looks like 'an exceptionally simple theory'; I thought pretty much the same (and I thought tensors made it look complicated) but good theories always look like this in retrospect and not when people are struggling towards the theory.

            After all, the Lorentz transformations were discovered by Lorentz via his theory of local time and that was hardly a simple theory. But I think that special relativity shows its subtlety when we try to incorporate it into other theories, that is into gravity - which took Einsteins (and others) and into quantum theory - that took Dirac & Feynman (and many others) and was quite a bit more complicated. I guess the lesson to learn from here is that a theory can look simple in isolation but show their teeth, so to speak, when we try to put them together with other theories.

            I also think Rovellis observation that distant simultaneity is not measurable and that we have is a local frame of reference is a good one. I'm not sure about his contention that Einstein fully embraced the geometric view - going on from his paper - I think he used it more as a tool. I recently came across a paper that showed that Einstein didn't consider GR as a geometric theory, but as a unification of inertia and gravity.

            Having said that I do think think the geometric view is a useful perspective, I never really understood tensors until they were explained geometrically. I guess I had been spoilt by vectors that made Newtons ideas seem more natural. Not that they weren't natural already.

            Warm Wishes

            Mozibur Ullah

              Dear Mozibur Rahman Ullah

              I really don't think special relativity is simple. The Lorentz transformation is simple; the theory, based on the 4D ontology is complex and paradox-ridden.

              You say, "special relativity shows its subtlety when we try to incorporate it into other theories, that is, into gravity and into quantum theory."

              But in a recent paper Glavan and Lin note that, "According to Lovelock's theorem, Einstein's general relativity with cosmological constant is the unique theory of gravity if we assume (i) the space-time is (3+1) dimensional [plus three other conditions]."

              The field equations are not Lorentz invariant. If one tries to add the Lorentz invariant pair-wise connections between all local particles in a global gravitational ontology, one would be adding pair-wise distortions of time and space (length contraction and time dilation), all local-pairwise-velocity-dependent, onto global mass-dependent space curvature. For example the Schwarzschild metric is time independent; it is frozen in space forever. The whole thing is an untenable proposition.

              Newtonian gravity is Galilean invariant. Recall that Einstein's field equations must make contact with the Newtonian potential in order to be a physical theory of gravity.

              The Maxwell-Hertz equations are Galilean invariant -- Einstein based his theory on Maxwell-Hertz, but he mistakenly used (ch 13), "bodies at rest" and he Lorentz-transformed between two cartoon worlds, whereas (ch 14), "bodies in motion", with the convective derivative is Galilean invariant.

              Schrödinger quantum mechanics is Galilean invariant, not Lorentz invariant.

              When Dirac forced special relativity symmetry on his equation, he gets a free particle with speed 1.7c, that is faster than the speed of light. When his equation is used for particles interacting with the field, he loses the 'spacetime symmetry' he had forced.

              Feynman, as best I can tell, uses Lorentz to maintain inertial mass, and ignores any length contraction issues, since these aren't measurable. The inertial mass can be maintained without Lorentz. However I suspect that the enforced geometry group symmetry probably simplifies a lot of the math in path integration, etc.

              In short, only special relativity, a toy model without gravity or rotation, or even inertial mass, requires Lorentz, and that is because Einstein invented a universal time dimension for every cartoon world, and 'attached' a constant speed of light to every world to enable the Lorentz to be derived, and used the inappropriate Maxwell-Hertz equations.

              I do not think Lorentz has travelled at all well across theories, but these facts are not always pointed out.

              I do thank you for reading my essay and thinking about it.

              Warm regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              "It is a primordial field, here since the beginning."

              Yes that's how I think of it too, rather than a field that is produced by the biochemistry and thus a secondary phenomenon, which is how various pan-psychisms try to shoehorn consciousness into physicalism... the fundamental particles just each have an inherent C property that then somehow combines together en mass in the biological form to become a correlated individuated C-field. But how do quantum bits of C all combine to make one unified C self?

              If the C-field is primordial and universal then there's no combination problem, just physical stuff floating around in a C-field and eventually self-organising into ever more complex self-aware forms of sentient matter--morphogenesis via your gravitational C-field theory!

              So I sort of get how this might work in the purely physical sense, just as a magnetic field works with electrons, so too the gravitational field is effected by and effects the neuronal mass mechanisms ... more or less? But I'm just not sure how the self-awareness property works in terms of transforming the G-field into a C-field.

              The hard problem of C is that of how not just self-awareness arises in us but also how that is accompanied by phenomenal experience, as in I'm aware of phenomenal stuff ... so what's the stuff and how does it arise reflected as it were in the C-field such that I can become aware of it?

              For me, given this wider phenomenal hard problem, any 'self-awareness' property would need to include a sort of self-reflective property, where self-awareness is itself an effect of this reflective property of C. I call this the 'Open Field', and we are the opening within which phenomena such as a 'red thing' for example, as well as our awareness of the red thing, and our awareness of being aware, can arise. All phenomena, all mental and physical phenomena, need the openness of a self-reflecting open field in order to appear as phenomena.

              But now I'm getting a tad Heideggerean!

              Malcolm,

              Gravity is the primordial field, the field all forces are supposed to converge to at Big Bang. I believe all mass effectively 'condenses' from the big-bang-density turbulence, with vortices stabilizing as solitons (neutrinos) or as torus (electrons and quarks). All of creation, particle and field is built of the same substrate. The interaction of the two forms is specified by Einstein's field equations. The G and C fields only interact strongly at Big Bang or LHC conditions., with no "structure" other than particle transformations. Not much to be 'self-aware' of, from our perspective. Things have to settle down to biological temperature and complexity before 'self awareness' attaches to any form we would recognize. At that point the equations are simpler (Heaviside) and the C-field (magnetic-like) circulation induced/generated by mass currents senses the presence of the mass-current, and the (magnetic-like) force of any local field effectively 'steers' the mass-current/momentum density.

              The 'sense and act on' behavior tells us how the field interacts with the body.

              It does not really matter how familiar you are with field equations, you will never truly understand how gravity 'pulls you to the earth' such that your arm gets tired holding it out in the gravitational field. Similarly you will never understand self awareness from the equations. My first essay made this point.

              I have proposed a theory that 'explains' how the brain can grasp 3D shapes, etc, and how the field couples to body in such a way that Darwinian evolution of complexity increases, without the nonsense of asking at what point does dead matter become conscious. The universe is conscious, but the awareness does not come from the equations. It comes from the primordial field evolving to where we are today. You're living it. You'll never get an explanation that produces awareness, it's there to start with. You might find this frustrating. I think it's great. Enjoy it!

              Thanks for playing!

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

              All the difficulties and paradoxes associated with the Special Theory of Relativity arise from the misinterpretation of the results. The comprehension of SRT is based on the presumption that all what one sees, hears, measures or in some other way perceives is reality. In fact, the measured values are apparent and the SRT is a tool for calculating the actual values. There are no paradoxes and conundrums in this case. More in: New Concept of Special Relativity. http://viXra.org/abs/1911.0367

              Best regards

              Ilgaitis

                Dear Ilgaitis,

                I believe your paper confuses the Doppler 'apparent length contraction' with Lorentz length contraction. Your abstract summarizes:

                "The comprehension of SRT is based on the presumption that all what one sees, hears, measures or in some other way perceives is reality. It leads to inexplicable paradoxes such as twin, Ehrenfest, spaceship and other paradoxes of relativity."

                You are certainly correct that SRT "leads to inexplicable paradoxes such as twin, Ehrenfest, spaceship and other paradoxes of relativity."

                They are paradoxes because the equations are simple, but the ontology is unrealistic. The example in my essay is one of many. I chose this example because I had not seen it explained in such fashion before. If you'd like many more examples, see my references; my ref 8 treats the same problem that you do, while ref 11 covers most historical issues.

                Perhaps if you read my essay closely you will understand the problem.

                Best wishes for you,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman