Deciding on the nature of time and space by 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

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

"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!

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

Thank-you Ed,

I've downloaded the paper and will give it a couple reads. I don't argue against anyone's treatment of Time. It's too personally precious to everyone whether they admit it or not :-), and I've had some success modeling a unitary field in 3D+T myself as a condensate of a primordial field. Where I find time dilation convenient is that in treating the rate of passage of time as a range of velocity itself, limiting at C, is that if time is propagating at C the the field energy can reach a finite limit spatial boundary because it need not, nor could not continue to expand (to infinity?) at any additional velocity through space. Its handy! But in theoretics, what is necessary is that the theory constructed meets the rigors of accepted and/or proven observations. The sticking point for Time in any scenario is "How can we know how fast time flies?" One second per second is a meaaningless tautology. Einstein skipped right over that elephant in the room in SR, the speed of time is an ambiguous universal stasis in both reference frames and only the Lorentz Transform then gives the difference between points of observation. Is the speed of time on earth a coefficient of escape velocity? Good Luck with your efforts and best wishes, jrc

It's my pleasure to play! And your essay is an excellent playground, so thanks for the opportunity Edwin, much appreciated.

"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!"

Again, I concur, and am never frustrated but rather have only ever enjoyed fundamental ontology! And yes, you, me, and the pan-psychists all agree that the universe is conscious and that we just have to posit consciousness as a fundamental physical property ... which also means we need to rethink what the physical in physicalism means, but probably only if you care about the current (deplorable) state of the philosophy of science. And I definitely think your primordial C-field is a better way to go for the reasons I gave above.

However, as for your contention that we are incapable of discovering what or how 'conscious awareness' is or arises, simply because 'we are it' therefore it's a fundamentally unknowable fundamental property and we should just leave it at that ... well that contention would depend on how you might define the term 'consciousness' ... which (perhaps annoyingly) is where the philosophy of mind starts.

And if you care about the philosophy of mind then just positing 'C' as a fundamental property attached to a primordial gravitational field doesn't answer what it is that is being attached. If we refuse to define what C is then how do you define what a C-field is, or how it interacts with gravity, matter, and the generation of (3+1)D patterns via our neuronal processes? Do you even need to posit C for your (3+1)D neuronal mass flow theory to function?

Otherwise, what is 'C' such that it can be a primordial property of a C-field?

Dear Edwin,

"There is no problem with the math of the Lorentz transformation;

the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality."

I have written that there is a mathematical problem with the derivation of the Lorentz transformations. I can take correction. Here is why I have said the above: I wrote:

The Improper 'Derivation' of the Lorentz Transforms by Einstein

Excerpt:

In order to make the clearest case for how the mathematics is carried out, I will use the common simplified example of the light source and the two observers all being located at the same point before any activity occurs. At the start of the activity two things happen. One observer leaves the initial point with a relative velocity with respect to that original point called the origin and moving horizontally to its right.. At the same instant the the moving observer begins to move, a light pulse is sent out from the origin in all directions and equal distance.

There are a few more assumptions included in the derivation. It is assumed that these new transforms will not apply to length in the orthogonal directions. It is also assumed that time is not to be treated as unidirectional, which leaves it being omnidirectional. In other words, Equations for the vertical directions, if they include 't', for example velocity, may need transformation. I mention this because the derivation will be made for the horizontal direction to the right as if it is one dimensional. However, the handling of 't' gives it a simultaneous three dimensional treatment.

There is an origin where both observers and the light source wait for the action to begin. At the same time One observer leaves the origin with a velocity v and moves horizontally to the right. Simultaneously, a bubble of light is released from the origin and moves away from the origin at the speed of light.

Part of the wave front travels along the same path that the moving observer is on. It speeds on ahead of him in the same horizontal direction to the right. Both observers see that same wave front. Both observers measure the speed of that wave front with respect to themselves. They both measure the speed of it as C.

For the stationary observer, the speed of the light presents no surprise. However, for the moving observer, it is expected that the speed of light will measure less than C by the velocity of the observer. That does not happen. Regardless of the magnitude of v, the moving observer measures the speed of light moving ahead of him as traveling at the speed C.

There is a mathematical step coming up that I haven't seen in a long time, but, it bothered me as being mathematically unwarranted from the first time I saw it done. In the early part of the derivation of the Lorentz transforms, the observers write their equations for their measurement of the speed of light. The distance between themselves and the leading edge of the light is simply the application of the Pythagorean theorem. That measurement is divided by time t1 for the stationary observer and t2 for the moving observer.

This is not the problem that I mentioned and will be getting to next. However, this part assumes that time may be different for each observer. This assumption is leading the solution toward time-dilation. We don't have that solution yet, but by providing for its possibility in the mathematics makes the mathematics 'look' for it. In other words, whether it is correct or not, if there is a mathematical way of expressing it using what is in the setup of the equations, it can be expected to appear as part of the result.

Now for the problem I have been leading up to. There are two equations for the measured speed of light from the perspective of each observer. The expressions consist of the distance written in the form of the Pythagorean theorem divided by the time. Time t1 for the fixed observer, and, time t2 for the moving observer. They both measure the speed of light as C, so the distance divided by the time is set equal to C. Nothing wrong there yet. Measured velocity equals C. This can be written as Measured velocity -C equals zero. We have measured velocity 1 minus C equals zero. We also have measured velocity 2 minus C equals zero.

The problem is the very next step. We have two equations set equal to zero. Since zero equals zero, the two equations are set equal to each other. The problem has appeared. Any equation can be written with everything on the left side and zero on the right side of the equals sign. Any two equations can be set equal to one another in this manner. There is nothing about this practice that seems justified. I can write any number of nonsensical equations by writing them so that they are equal to zero and then setting them equal to any other equation prepared in the same way.

I mentioned earlier about putting the assumption that there could be two different rates of clock time into the equations gives direction to the mathematics that if it is possible for a solution to include two rates of time, to find that solution. Here in the problem just explained. setting two equations equal to one another just because they are written as both being equal to zero, appears to again give direction to the mathematics to find, if possible, an expected or anticipated solution. I see the mathematics being manipulated to head toward a particular kind of solution.

It could be that the solution will be the one that does best fit with physical reality. I don't see it that way because one of the solutions is that there are different rates of time simultaneously. I find no direct empirical evidence to support the solution called time-dilation. It may be that the speed of light varies, which seems far more physically reasonable to me. Many relativity type of effects can be accounted for by a remote perspective of a varying the speed of light instead a varying speed of time for each observer. There is a challenge in trying a new method of solution. This mainstream simple example used to achieve the Lorentz transforms is appears to physicists as a reasonable problem to solve.

It needs to be shown that an undirected solution, as opposed to the mainstream solution which gives some appearance of having been mathematically directed toward a solution, doesn't present us with a varying speed of light, then there is a conflict with the idea that the speed of light varies.

A derivation of the Lorentz transforms is at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

The equation that I spoke about where two separate equations were set to zero and then set equal to each other is the first equation on the equation line D3.

Getting back to the simple problem that is being solved. Going any further with the mainstream mathematics is not really worth it. There are several mathematical steps that need to be done. And, there is a lot of explaining the needs to be done. However, the Lorentz transforms are the solutions to that problem and, physicists have been using them for a hundred years, and like them. So the list of the Lorentz transforms is really all that most users need to know. Here is an introductory video about Special Relativity, using easy math:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJwnsc4D40

With regard to maybe there being an alternative solution to the mainstream example problem; one can just use normal length and normal time keeping and the solution is that they will measure the speed of light to be different. Maybe the speed of light does vary, but it doesn't vary in that way. It is the case that all observers will measure the speed of light to be C when measured locally. Measured locally means that the equipment used to measure the speed of light experiences the same environment conditions as does the light who's speed is being measured. So, it looks like I need to consider a possible third solution.

I am looking to generate a better example problem that, after setting up the initial conditions, the mathematics will provide its own non-directed solution. I will include a few more paragraphs for the purpose of showing you what my thoughts are.

Here is a different problem: There are again two observers. They are in different environments. For observer #1 there is a beam of light coming toward him and beginning to pass him. Observer two is experiencing the same problem but is not located with observer #1. The environmental conditions are such that the light passing by observer #! is moving faster than the light beam that is passing by observer #2.

Each observer sees the beam passing by them and the beam passing by the other observer. The beams are traveling horizontally in the same direction. Observer #1 is located high above observer #2. Observer #1 measure the speed of the light passing by him and finds that it is traveling at the speed of C. Observer #2 does the same and finds that the speed of the light passing by him is C.

Observer #1 looks at the light passing by observer #2 and finds that its speed is substantially less than C. Observer #2 looks at the light .passing by observer #1 and finds that its speed is greater than C. Each observer used their own meter stick and clock located next to them. They don't see anything out of the ordinary when they measure the speed of the light passing by themselves. However, they measure each other's speed of light very differently. This finding does tell us something important. Their meter sticks for sure are not the same length. The difference in the lengths of their meter sticks should be enough to account for the differences in measurements of their own passing light and that of the other observer.

However, there is something about their two environments which changed the length of their meter sticks. Does it also affect the speed of light or perhaps the rates that their clocks tick at? The meter sticks don't answer that question. They may vary linearly or maybe not. What we do know is that the Lorentz transforms have been working and they are not linear. This example problem may have different solutions from the Lorentz transforms, but the results must be nonlinear and probably will look analogous to the Lorentz transforms.

Returning to the questionable mathematics of the 'derivation' of the Lorentz Transforms. I think that the two odd looking mathematical steps are unwarranted but they are both necessary because they are what lead to the time-dilation equation. It is a forced result. The inclusion, in the set up of the original math conditions, of a term that prepares the way for time to be transformed will not result in time dilation if the mathematics that follows is completed with normal mathematical steps.

Normal mathematical steps would not include the process of setting up the two equations where everything is moved to the left side of the equals sign resulting in each equation being set equal to zero. Then the illogical looking step of setting the two equations equal to one another simply because zero equals zero saves the derivation so that time dilation can appear in the results.

A normal mathematical step would have divided both equations by C with Ct in each denominator. Both equations would have been equal to one. Setting them equal to each other would have been a natural mathematical step. However. Ct would have been in the denominators of both equations. By moving all terms to one side of each equation and setting them equal to zero and then equal to one another, the product of speed of light C and t was not in the denominators by rather appears as a subtracted term in both numerators. This is obviously a cheat step that was necessary for the solution to include time dilation.

End of excerpt.

James

Hello Edwin...

I consider GEOMETRY, as a discrete language of graphic primitives, to be the most descriptive and universal language branch of maths, and I greatly enjoyed your utilization of graphic primitives...i.e. cartoons... to expose imprecise mental constructs that are constraining perceptions of Reality.

Obviously "relative" to the train station observer, the combined railcar speed @ .9c and the kiddie car speed @ .9c exceeds the maximum speed of light as c, but glass railcar walls do not facilitate our ability to know whether a system internal, "self aware" entity can perceive speed in excess of c?

I recently read Stephen Wolfram's "Finally we may have a path to the fundamental theory of physics and its beautiful", and in Feynman tradition he skillfully employs graphic primitives... i.e. causal graph foliation angle of 45 degs.. to explain why an observer can not go "faster than light", but as you demonstrate in your analysis of professor Susskind's? graphic presentation of "relativity, geometries that are inconsistent with reality can be convincing.

To say, as Stephen does, "to make our observer go "faster than light", we can see that can't work" is not the same as to conclude that a physical entity cannot be made to travel in excess of c, with respect to an observer... i.e. one can NOT know whether the kiddie car @ .1c would disappear from the train station observer's visual perception range.

Stephen's graphic analysis infers an "elementary length" of 10-93 meters, which he makes note, is "very small compared to the Planck length ~10-35 meters that arises essentially from dimensional analysis", and in that Lorentz invariance is only verified down to the scale of the Planck length, the reality sampling rate range of a "self aware" entity is not a verifiable constant.

That is to say that even if perception of a maximum distance/time can be shown by Stephens's graphic presentation, to be "relative" to the sampling rate range of a "self aware" entity, we still can NOT establish a "self aware" entity's visual perception range relative to the speed of light c.

Ontology mandalas have a very long history... i.e. are rumored to have been drawn as sand paintings on cave floors... and I agree with you Edwin, that it is essential that "One must make metaphysical choice commitments to ontology", and deductions derivable from one's ontology must be consistent with Reality.

That being the case, I have for over 20 years based my ontology GEOMETRY on the structural GEOMETRY that emerges from a spatial singularity encapsulating a minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) pulsed Point Source emission, of a directionally unbiased distribution of Space-Time Energy, as minimum/indivisible spatially defined quanta (QE).

REF: Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSOSE.jpg

In that Stephen's work provides foundation for a QT, c value much greater than c as currently consistent with Planck's constant, discrete 3D Space, and spatially defined Energy quanta, I am encouraged in my ontological commitment.

I also agree with Stephen that a fundamental rule underlies the ontology of Reality, but analysis of 2D graphs that represent an isolated sample range of 3D Reality is inherently perturbative... i.e. not conducive to investigation of a fundamental rule for 3D Space... and Stephen runs up against age old "something from nothing" model rejection criteria... i.e. "the Universe had input at very beginning".

Historically, one's ontology not only requires a fundamental rule for its spatial GEOMETRY, but also a compatible fundamental rule for emergence of its dynamics.

That being the case, my ontological fundamental EMISSION rule for a QT pulsed, single Point Source QE emission, within a unified minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI) quantization GEOMETRY, is the requirement for resolve of spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI distribution throughout the entire system on each pulse (QT), by an emerging networked intelligence whose root architecture is the unified unit quantization of the Space, as defined by the UQS spatial singularity... i.e." a consciousness field that is self-aware and capable of interacting with matter".

REF:UQS Directionally Unbiased Point Source QE Emission) www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

As you have demonstrated, graphic primitives are still interpretive, but animated spatially defined Energy icons... e.g. QE... within a digital CAD environment... i.e. SIMs... can verify interpretations are consistent with Reality, and visually enhance cognitive leaps required for application of fundamental principles.

REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

Yes, 10 years of FQXi open submission essay contests have facilitated exposure to the diversity of individual ontological models, but the field of Reality consistent models seems tp be narrowing...i.e. the search for a fundamental principle is being served.

Thanks Edwin, for your contribution to perceptual clarity... and I a looking forward to reading your "Recent papers [1,2,3] discuss century-old issues associated with the ontological problem".

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Edwin...

My bad!!

The text in above comment reads: ... c value much greater than c as currently consistent with Planck's constant...

It should read: ... a quantum of action much smaller than currently consistent with Planck's quantum of action

sl

Hello Professor Klingman,

I thought about your quantum field of consciousness, I have thought a lot also about this consciousness. In the past I considered that this consciousness is an emergent propertt due to evolution of biological Brains but after a deeper analyse I see differently and I consider that all is conscious probably. Because I consider that the main energy beyond this physicality is an infinite eternal consciousness and in my model this energy is transformed in energy and matters from the central cosmological sphere. I consider so like I told you 3 main finite series of 3D coded spheres, one for the space and two others for the fuels , photons and cold dark matter and when they merge they create our topologies, geometries, properties of matters with fields and particles. So I consider that all is made of particles and not fields, but I understand your model probably correlated with the strings and the fields and this 1D main field , or geonetrodynamics. I see just differently considering a kind of gravitational primoridal aether , this space is coded and from this eternal consciousness. We search answers to this universal puzzle, and I beleive that this consciousness is the main source , like main energy. This energy after in being transformed and coded create our physicality, so we can indeed consider that all is conscious at its level of conscious, probably that the number of particles encoded is proportional with the consciousness and the evolution is important also. It is complex to encircle all this, but we try to reach these unknowns. the big difference in my model of spherisation and these 3D coded spheres is about the main essence, I consider particles coded but we can converge at my humble opinion with the fields. The particles for me are more foundamental, the fields are just a resuslts of contact and encodings of these 2 fuels that I have explained made of coded spheres.

Friendly