Ripping Apart Einstein

John Cox

Eckard,

Yes, very much agreed, we are limited to accepting some ad hoc paradigm, and we owe it to ourselves to keep it as simple as possible. Consequently, however, any paradigm must be provisional. enough.

As to your paragraph 4, this would imply the provision of space across all time would be suffused with electromagnetic and/or gravitational fields that would be metaphysically real, for there to be causality. Which leads to real measures of space and time, and all physics being local. jrc

Eckard Blumschein

John C,

Students tend to be confronted with static e and m fields before dynamic em fields. Only the latter are local in the sense they propagate while static fields are imagined global in the sense they extend endlessly. It would be nice if you could explain what you meant with local and global.

Eckard

John Cox

Eckard,

"static fields are imagined global in the sense they extend endlessly."

I have always felt that is simply imaginary, as it would naturally result mathematically in singularity. So while I would agree that Maxwell is not complete, nor Lorentz, the title of Einstein's 1905 paper says it all. It is *ON the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies* and the observed effect of velocity of those bodies on their electrodynamic properties.

As far as I'm concerned, people will have their own ideas of what they want to make of space and time. I try to understand enough of what that might be to have some idea of what they are talking about, but as none are realistically testable I generally avoid fanaticism. Different strokes for different folks.

I also agree that speculative theorizing on such personal paradigms is not the stuff of Foundational studies. Fundementals rest on what foundations can be built, and there is no bedrock of indisputable truth to be had. So while the old advertising tactic of 'shock and awe' does pull in a few web browsers, they are likely to set it back down like any magazine in a waiting room. Getting anyone older than children excited in the fundamentals should be the general theme, but quite honestly I think that by the time one gets to the Perimeter of the institute, fundamentals have long since been abandoned. I just, naively perhaps, think that exploring foundations is best accomplished from fundamentals. They are difficult enough for me. :-) jrc

Georgina Woodward

Lampa-Terrell-Penrose effect

Distortion within output images (from processing of received EM data), not indicating corresponding object distortion.

"Thanks to the differential timelag effects in signals reaching the observer from the object's different parts, a receding object would appear contracted, an approaching object would appear elongated (even under special relativity) and the geometry of a passing object would appear skewed, as if rotated.[1][2]"

[1] James Terrell (1959). "Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction". Physical Review 116 (4): 1041-1045.[2] Roger Penrose (1959). "The Apparent Shape of a Relativistically Moving Sphere". Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 55 (01): 137-139.

Georgina Woodward

If two clocks with excellent timekeeping at position A are synchronized by two observers also at that position and then by slow transport the clocks are separated; though to each observer at each new position the distant clock appears to be telling a different time from his own (distal measurement giving image reality output) they remain synchronized in Object reality. Both substantial object clocks at a particular proximal time [observed on the clock, (isomorphic to the measurement by the substantial measuring device)], are a part of the same pattern in the sequence of patterns of the Object universe (Configuration of all substantial objects and particles ) in which the positions on the clock faces of the hands of the two clocks ( made of atoms) are isomorphic to each other, in Object reality.

It is when the output experience of sensory data receipt and processing, including distal measurement of time, is introduced that non simultaneity becomes apparent. The distal measurement relies upon sensory data transmission, receipt and processing; which prevents the output observed from being isomorphic to the measurement now showing on the substantial object clock (proximal measurement). The relative motion of the observer or observed also affects the way in which the sensory data is received and so the appearance of the output. It is the sensory data received and output of sensory data processing that gives the apparent time, an image reality. Image reality and object reality are not equivalent and are not synchronized.

Georgina Woodward

Image reality depends upon what sensory data is received together forming the apparent present and apparent synchronicity of events within that present. Generally potential sensory data received together is processed into same output irrespective of time taken for the data to arrive. Giving a space-time output IE containing temporal spread. (Although for an organism's sensory system acting as the reality interface there may be some adjustment between input and output affecting apparent synchronicity- See David Eagleman's FQXi talk). As what potential data is received varies for different observer positions and reference frames so does the experienced present and experienced synchronicity of events.

Georgina Woodward

That there is non simultaneity of experienced events should not be used to suppose that the object sources of the potential sensory data received must remain unchanged. As the image reality output depends only upon the receipt of potential sensory data already emitted into the environment. The pool of EM data allows different observers to receive and process that data in different ways according to location and motion relative to the sensory data within the environment.

Potential sensory data pertaining to an event received and processed into the present of one observer and already past experience of another may yet be -to be received- by a more distant observer and is in that regard his pre-written future. The information contained within the Data pool of potential image realities is distinct from the Object reality of substantial source objects now existing; that co-exist within Object reality with the EM radiation distributed within the environment.

The EM potential sensory data is not the substantial past, present and future; only the potential to form Image realities of former objects and events. There is no need to suppose there is a space-time continuum in which substantial realities persist in form and configurations through out all time. The object sources can change, move or cease to exist after the EM radiation is emitted that persists in the environment by which former arrangements, forms and events will be experienced

The Grandfather paradox seems to be based upon that assumption that non simultaneity of events requires substantial object persistence rather than just the sensory data from which to construct image reality present experience. It confuses Image reality (emergent output reality from sensory data processing ) with Object reality (substantial being -Independent of observation). It is therefore based upon a category error.

Akinbo Ojo

Georgina,

I understand what you express because I have taken time to understand your peculiar physics dialect. But you may need to say these things in a more widely spoken dialect for others to appreciate.

If I may take the liberty, in the more familiar language what you are agonizing about is the choice between Galilean and Special (Lorentzian) relativity expressed in a peculiar manner of speaking.

Regards,

Akinbo

Georgina Woodward

I was trying to express certain concepts in a very precise way that are not easily, clearly and unambiguously expressed in other terms.I linked 3 diagrams here addressed to Gary: on Jun. 23, 2015 @ 22:47 GMT and @ 23:14 GMT Those diagrams illustrate the explanatory framework to which my posts pertain. I have a glossary that might help too. I'll try to find it. These posts have been about the difference between substantial, made of atoms, objects and emergent insubstantial images. As well as the difference between local measurement that is observed -and observation of an output image of a distant measurement, formed from received EM radiation.Also non simultaneity of different internally generated observed presents (image reality ) within entirely simultaneous, and continually changing external Object reality. How this negates the space-time continuum idea and the Grandfather paradox.

Eckard Blumschein

John C,

"... fundamentals have long since been abandoned. I just, naively perhaps, think that exploring foundations is best accomplished from fundamentals."

Dominating mathematicians are believing that Georg Cantor's naive Set theory is fundamental to mathematics although there is no reason to do so except for vanity. I got aware of people who compared mathematics with a huge solid building that works well even without a solid ground. While this insight is perhaps correct, it is about as unwelcome as are the insights that were even implied in recent utterances by the pope: Humans must become different from animals in that they control their reproduction and also stop wasting and poisoning anything.

I am wondering what you meant when you wrote: "It is *ON the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies* and the observed effect of velocity of those bodies on their electrodynamic properties." Reading p. 891 again and again, I tend to agree that E. was correct in his guess that there is no natural reference point for space. However, E's further guesses and his plagiarizing reinterpretation of Lorentz and Poincaré are not logically warranted. E. didn't at all deal with electrodynamics. He equated moving bodies with coordinate systems of mechanics.

Eckard

Georgina Woodward

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."A. Einstein

There is no clear delineation between the past, present and future across different observer's output Image reality (from processing of received EM radiation). There is non simultaneity of events because different sensory data is -received and processed together- by different observers, into the individual reality that is observed by each. However this is comparison of emergent Image realities, what is seen. It does not require that there is corresponding extant Object reality. There is no past and no future in a uni-temporal object reality only what exists (independent of observation). The EM radiation that may become an observer's experienced present ( pre-written future) is just EM radiation in Object reality and not the time, events and objects it can be processed into by an observer. In that foundational reality 'that which has formerly been (distinct from the Image Reality past)', no longer existing, is unambiguously, actually different from that which substantially exists and that which has not existed.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

"... although a convincing one." Because Einstein did perhaps not write his letter of condolence in English, there are different translations. However, he did definitely not mean "convincing".

You seem to intend defending Einstein:

"There is no clear delineation between the past, present and future across different observer's output Image reality" and

"There is no past and no future in a uni-temporal object reality only what exists (independent of observation)."

As you know, I am advocating for what you are calling "uni-temporal" in contrast to Einstein's plurality of local times. Perhaps we may agree on that what you are calling object reality can strictly speaking not at all directly observed.

I maintain that Einstein's use of the fuzzy notion present indicates that he ignores or at least belittles that the distinction between past and future reality must not be blurred.

I also maintain that reality means a conjectured existence in the sense that only this ascription is kept for correct. "Image reality" means something quite different. That's why I dislike such notions.

Having nor yet dealt with Lampa's arguments, I regret that there seems to be little surrounding information available for free. I read that Lampa supported Einstein in Prague about 15 years before his 1924 paper. I found nothing worth mentioning by or about James Terrell. I wonder if the proponents of SR may do without the Lampa effect as one more putative evidence. Primarily I would like to know to what extent the "effect" does likewise occur with sound instead of electromagnetic waves. The dependence on the direction of velocity sounds reasonable to me.

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard, (and All),

yes there are different translations as you say -"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."A. Einstein. My intention was not to agree with the belief of Einstein, but to show how he is wrong despite division between past, present and future being indistinct across different observer experiences. He it seems extrapolated non simultaneity of experienced events to a belief in the substantial persistence of all objects and events within the space-time continuum, such that they could in theory be visited and likewise in the existence of a substantial future ahead of the experienced present. In contrast to that belief, it is necessary, to prevent Grandfather type paradoxes, for there to be only what exists at uni-temporal Now, that is the current and only substantial configuration of the Object universe. Non simultaneity of events does not necessitate the substantial persistence of events,only the persistence of potential sensory data from which images of former events can be produced.

Yes Object reality can not be observed at all, it is NOT the output of sensory data processing; BUT IS the foundational reality underlying the emergent reality from sensory data processing.

That -there is no clear delineation between the past, present and future across different observer's output Image reality- is more obvious if sound sensory data is imagined rather than EM radiation. The output of each observer depends upon his relationship to the potential sensory data in the environment. As I have tried to demonstrate to John Cox and Thomas Ray, objects and Images are real physics phenomena that are non equivalent. Basic image reality is that produced by a simple inorganic system such as a lens and screen or a camera. The output is not imaginary but real, although it can differ from the external environment by amalgamating images of objects from EM radiation that has taken different lengths of time to arrive. Giving an output containing "temporal spread". The human eye works as a system of lenses ( Cornea and lens ) which focus light onto the retina as a real inverted image. The real images of both eyes are then mapped to the visual cortex producing the experienced (not inverted ) 3D image from the two 2D retina images. There is nothing imaginary about these processes that involve optics and anatomy. Although there is processing of the input data to make it more useful to the organism. The primary visual cortex - Eye, Brain, and Vision

I linked to Lampa-Terrell-Penrose effect because it seems to me, from the Wikipedia article, they are clearly talking about the output, from receipt of input, by a camera and relating that to the mathematical predictions of SR. Which is in support of my argument that it deals with images and not substantial objects themselves, negating Grandfather paradox and making Barn pole types intuitive.

Georgina Woodward

Anonymous replied on Jul. 6, 2015 @ 10:53 GMT, was me.

Regards Georgina

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

Did you look at the archives of New Directions in the Foundation of Physics meetings? I got aware of a lot. For instance, In the 2002 volume, I found Arntzenius stating: There are no spatial relations between objects at different times. Do you support this?

In 2009 John Bell argued for Frame-Valued Sets. 2012 Saunders and Wheatherall recommended rethinking and explaining inertial motion, respectively. In 2012 Renn, Salisbury, and Blum reminded of Fermat's time, etc.

While I was less interested in frequent discussions e.g. of ontic vs.epistemic, I consider reality something ontic, something that ultimately evades me

Georgina Woodward

Hi Eckard, (and All)

no I have not seen that. The question of whether there is spatial relation between objects at different times presumes that there can be Objects at different times. That is so for a space-time model such as Block time. A uni-temporal Object universe precludes that possibility. There is only one extant time, uni-temporal -Now. That does not mean that Objects can not be affected by the former action of other objects, and calculations made. Such as a boat rocked now by the wake of a passing of a boat then.

The question also requires differentiation of Image from Object reality because there can be spatial relations between parts of an image that pertain to different times. The distances shown in the image could be measured 'on the ground', or estimated for astronomic images, giving the distance between corresponding Source Objects, even though the EM radiation from which the different parts of the image is formed was not produced during the same configuration of the Object universe, I.E. not at the same time. The image is real but also a distortion of what has existed.

The true, absolute relations are those between substantial objects within the same configuration of the Object universe. Everything is in motion so the object universe is continually changing, some relations between objects will persist within uni-temporal -Now and others be extinguished. Relations within uni-temporal -Now are extant, true relations.

It seems to me that Object reality is ontic but Image reality whereby we know and understand our surroundings is both ontic, having factual existence, in that it is a real phenomenon, but also epistemic. We have to know how to decode the sensory output into meaning. Such as identifying individual 'objects', learned from relative motion of the seen images of them. People born blind who regain sight have to learn how to see. Also, for example- a photographic image is real (ontic) but what is depicted need not have been real, not having factual existence within a singular configuration of the Object universe. Like a cipher is ontic but the decoded message that is understood from it is epistemic. That is why I have depicted Image realty as both a part within Object reality but also as another level of emergent "reality".

I'll have to take a look at the things you refer to in your second paragraph.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina,

Links to the archives I mentioned can be found via the recent blog by Foster: Action and Excitement and Science. The conferences from 2002 to 2015 seem to reflect much of the discussion among experts. I should apologize for my unfinished post. My last letters me were the beginning of the word "measurement". The archives look to me like a who is who. I was in particular interested in an abstract by Lee Smolin which is missing: "Not yet available". Fortunately we have Smolin's essay. Pentcho Valev blamed Smolin for being arrogant because he refused any reply. Maybe, he is rather shy or he had reasons to do so.

Ripping Einstein and SR apart is not my primary intention. Let me try and summarize some reasons for me to distrust and delve into the philosophy of physics:

- To me as an engineer, mathematics is a variety of tools, not the real object.

- Considering trust in causality an indispensable precondition of physics, I learned form Ohm's mistake that putatively causal descriptions might be flawed.

- Non-causality corresponds to Parmenides' existence monism, a timeless or cyclic and even fatalistic philosophy in contrast to Cusanus' infinite and Popper's open world. Non-causal methods require critical interpretation.

- To my best knowledge a cause always precedes its effect, not vice versa.

- Accordingly, past and future are quite different from each other, and a cosine transformation suffices in principle for frequency analysis of any measured (past) data. The Fourier transformation introduces arbitrariness and redundancy.

- Fourier transformation as well as Einstein's Poincaré synchronization ignore the binding to the actual moment now between past and future. They belong to arbitrarily chosen closed models, not to an open reality.

Eckard

Georgina Woodward

Dear Eckard,

thank you I will take a look at the archive. I have enjoyed watching a video of Lee Smolin arguing for step by step passage of time. Lee Smolin a new theory of time But it was loaded on YouTube a year ago. I think he makes a good point about social and personal responsibility, mentioning in particular climate change; that responsibility is absent in a model of all time existing as one continuum. "Block time" type models are flawed and fatalistic. Not only incorrect ( due to category error) but not what the World needs at this time. So well done Lee for pointing out that issue. It would have been nice if he had responded to some of the comments on his essay but as you say he may have his own good reasons not to want to.

You have a good list. When you say "To my best knowledge a cause always precedes its effect, not vice versa." I would like to argue that for a distant observer that is not always how it appears to be, even though cause does always precede effect in the foundational reality that is the source of the sensory data that the distant observer receives. I'm thinking a glass shattered by a high frequency note might be seen to shatter before the sound cause is heard. Though it might be necessary to record sound and picture using recording devices and then play them back slowed down, as the brain can, with a small enough time interval, synchronize the differently timed inputs into a synchronized output (See David Eagleman's FQXi talk). I think a plane that disintegrates due to an explosion could be seen by a distant observer to fall apart before noise, by which an explosion is identified, is heard.

"The binding to the actual moment now between past and future"(Eckard), IMHO belongs to the foundational reality and proximal measurement only ( due to the small distance between object and observer and very rapid transmission of EM potential sensory data.)Past and future referring in this case to substantial events that have occurred and have not yet occurred respectively, not realms.

Georgina Woodward

I will upload another diagram when it is drawn tidily. Having talked about Ontic and Epistemic reality I see that I really need to separate the different kinds of Image reality.

Object reality does not require a reality interface to come into being, it exists independently of the function of optical devices and observers. It includes all substantial objects and potential sensory data including the EMR data pool.

Emergence level 1, A/ Simple reality interface: the production of real images by a simple reality interface such as lens and screen or camera. Ontic output. Pattern on screen or photo. B/ Duel reality interface a) real image output showing virtual image. The real image produced by the 2nd reality interface in the system eg, observer or camera 'looking at' mirror or concave lens. Secondary ontic output( image on retina and hence on visual cortex or pattern on photograph. b) Observer or device 'looking at' real image output output of a first reality interface. Real image output of real image output. Ontic. C/ The Prime Reality Interface: Organisms sensory system produces real image from received EMR sensory data. Ontic (image on retina and hence on visual cortex)

Emergence level 2, Meaning given to patterns, image content and arrangement. Epistemic. [A]. the experienced present, a natural virtual reality outcome from level 1, C/. [B]. the meaning applied to the pattern content of static images such as photographs or screen from level 1, B/ b) Epistemic device mediated virtual reality.

[C](or possibly emergence level 3). the meaning given to multiple images produced from collection of sensory data and processing into visible output such as from a telescope or telescope array. Epistemic technology assisted virtual reality.

Level 1 is ontic as the output has factual existence. Level 2 is epistemic virtual reality as the meaning understood, (the objects and their relations), from the image is not necessarily isomorphic to the existing substantial arrangement, and may also differ from any substantial reality that has existed as the image content may have been produced from data emitted at different times, IE across different configurations of the Object universe. Only the youngest configuration exists and so that temporally spread relationship can not happen for the substantial objects of the Object universe.

Now it can be seen that relativity works with emergent level 2 [A] via level 1 C/. Meaning given to the image content of the output of sensory data processing.

Georgina Woodward

I'll have to sort out the names. Natural virtual reality, device mediated and technology assisted won't do as they are easily confused with artificial reality called Virtual reality.

« Previous Page Next Page »