Essay Abstract

In this letter, we continue our discussions regarding the limits to both zero and infinity in a system defined by measurement by defining the frames of reference embedded in paradoxes and assigning an observer to each frame of reference. We demonstrate that paradoxes often rely on including unstated, and relative, observer frames of reference within the paradox. When any observer, in a relative frame of reference, is asked to violate their measurement minimums, or the rules of general relativity regarding the simultaneous measurement of relative frames of reference - the result is the appearance of paradox. We break down observational frames of reference embedded in the Liar paradox, the Card paradox, the Barber paradox, the Grandfather paradox, and Schrodinger's Cat paradox. We then proceed to demonstrate how the rules of general relativity force boundary conditions on all relative sets embedded within The Russell paradox - including the set of all sets. We finish with a short discussion of paradox related to the forcing of relative rules on the set of natural numbers and the Peano axioms.

Author Bio

I am both an artist and a scientist. My bio and artwork can be found at chrisjblackwood.com. My work in theoretical physics and astrophysics can be found at mtdi.org

Download Essay PDF File

"Kurt Gödel was a good friend of Einstein's." Gödel might have been a bad influence on Einstein -- encouraging Einstein to focus on mathematics and philosophical fundamentals instead of empirical evidence.

Kurt Gödel, Wikiquote

Did Einstein, in his later years, put enough effort into working on predictions from quantum theory? Have string theorists put enough effort into understanding Milgrom's MOND?

    David,

    I believe Einstein was trying to protect his legacy. Entanglement and violations of Bell's inequality are, clearly, much more than "spooky action at a distance". Einstein, like all of us, was limited by his own frame of reference. Thanks for the post. I hope this proves to be a lively topic.

    Dear Chris,

    You observe that Einstein "tells us that there can be no simultaneous measurements between different frames of reference." This is of course based on his 4D ontology in which he assigns a universal time dimension to every frame. There's recent evidence that the 'time dilation' (= clock slowing) of 4D special relativity space-time theory can be explained quite simply in a (3+1)D-ontology formulated in terms of energy-time.

    This is compatible with the Global Positioning System (GPS) where clocks are adjusted to compensate for the kinetic energy and gravitational energy of each clock and effectively establish the universal simultaneity that our commerce is based on.

    I very much like your treatment of "unstated, and imaginary, frames of reference" in 'The Liar's Paradox'.

    You continue to unearth such 'unstated frames of reference' as you go through a list of paradoxes. This is a fruitful enterprise for you; I'm unsure how it translates to ontology, i.e. reality.

    In special relativity all paradoxes are associated with Einstein's 4D-ontology and disappear in (3+1)D-ontology. You might find my essay Deciding on the nature of time and space that touches on this to be of interest.

    I was looking forward to the General Relativity mentioned in your title, but was hoping for more in your slight treatment of this.

    In general, Einstein defined a 'simultaneity detector' as operating at the midpoint between two distant simultaneous events. Obviously only the detectors on a bisecting plane can register such events as simultaneous, but in (3+1)D-ontology, simultaneous events are simultaneous, regardless of whether that news reaches all observers at the same time.

    A very interesting essay -- good luck in the contest.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      I have actually covered this topic extensively in my other work. mtdi.org. In particular you might enjoy my paper on time symmetry at the horizon of a Black Hole. It was written about a year before the EHT announcement in April. I also have a paper there that shows how boundaries can be set without observers by separating Bayesian and Markovian time operators. Thank you very much for your perspectives on this. I would enjoy hearing your opinion on these other papers.

      Chris

      Dear Chris,

      I enjoyed reading your essay, it was thought-provoking especially the use of forcing. I'm not a model-theorist, but what struck me is MacLanes claim that forcing can be understood geometrically through sheaves. Of course GR is a geometric theory...

      I'd say that Goedel was much more than a good friend of Einsteins, according to Hao Wang, a biographer of Goedel, Einstein said he went to his office at the Adv. inst. purely so he could walk home with him - I expect that they had a lot to talk about. I've always found Goedels discovery of a solution to GR that contained closed timelike loops to be intriguing.

      By the way, if I'm not mistaken, your website address detailing where your art is to be found is wrong. I found it by the wonders of search engines. I particularly liked your abstracts. Some of them remind me of Pollack - was he an influence?

      I wish you all the best for the contest.

      Warm regards

      Mozibur Ullah

      Dear Mozibur,

      Thank you for your generous comments. I will fix the BIo info right away! My art site is chrisjblackwood.com. Thank you for your kind appraisal of my abstract work. I studied traditional painting and drawing at the Rhode Island School of design. I try to bring those techniques to my abstract work. I also try to consider my work in physics and astrophysics as a form of "art". I believe this allows me to push traditional boundaries in physics a little further than I would otherwise.

      Thank you for your very kind remarks,

      Chris

      Dear Chris,

      You're very welcome. I think its remarkable that you have managed to combine careers in both the visual arts and the sciences. Its a rare talent.

      I remember - quite some time ago now - that when I was at the mathematical institute at Oxford how visually lacking the art there was. There was a dusty and lacklustre box of Penrose tiles and that was about it. There's more to the visual than mere geometry! Perhaps maths and physics departments may take a hint from your work and do more to commission work from artists that know and understand the field of science.

      I think its telling that you've studied traditional techniques. I've met a few artists that seemed to be more into the art lifestyle than the art itself. Its always a surprise and pleasure to see someone take it seriously especially these days when so much art has been commodified into design or a Duchampian self-referential meta narrative on nothing much at all.

      Good luck with all.

      Warm wishes

      Mozibur Ullah

      Write a Reply...