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

    Dear Israel,

    I noted from a previous essay you commented:

    "Definitely the view of space as a fluid can drastically twist our present views of the universe and make a lot of progress for science. I'm quite convinced of this."

    In light of this I would like to link you to my latest work along these lines:

    A Primordial Spacetime Metric

    Cheers,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Jonathan,

    That's what makes horse races: "ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice".

    I could argue every one of your statements, but if it fits together nicely in your mind, I could almost certainly not change your mind.

    I have a very hard time believing that it's possible to determine "the photons travelled at c in relation to both the lab and the pions." I think some very strong assumptions went into that conclusion.

    Thanks for sharing your analysis with me.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    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