Comparing Apples to Inches by John Brodix Merryman

Chris,

Here are a couple of links. From Dan Benedict on a very large theoretical miss by Big Bang theory which is overlooked:

[link:www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale]http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

From Israel Perez on another possible explanation for redshift as a function of distance:

2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

That last site:

here

Another:

here

J: Agreed. Time is an effect of motion.

E: Motion of what?

J: ... if we could perceive reality in terms greater than the little snippets at a time that we do, it would, by definition, fry our mental circuits.

E: Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

(E:) This would not affect the time.

J:It would affect the measure of time. Essentially one clock runs faster than

another, but they both exist in the same present.

E: In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

(E:) Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it.

J: A dimensionless point is a useful tool, but conceptually flawed, since anything multiplied by zero is zero.

E: Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

(E:) ... physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

J: Einstein suffered from fame and the problem of having others take his every utterance seriously.

E: While he made this utterance in a letter of condolence, it does nonetheless repeat his disagreement with Ritz.

(E:) Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

J: We can offer up ideas and see if they have any effect. Other than that, the mainstream follows its own course. I grew up as a younger child in a large family, so I'm quite used to being ignored.

E: Before offering ideas we should do our homework. Tomorrow more.

Regards,

Eckard

John,

I noticed that in a comment to John Gadway you said: "I first began studying physics in a search for objectivity, but find the field rife with many of the same conceptual and professional contradictions inherent in other fields."

Welcome to the real world.

You also said: "I think we are all waiting for the denouement, such as not discovering super-symmetric particles by the LHC, or the discovery of galaxies older than the presumed age of the universe, in order to have the space for new ideas to flourish."

As I've remarked to you elsewhere, my GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

The response to this from many has been "There has to be SUSY!"

But this morning my 3 Mar 2011 issue of NATURE said that over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Explains a lot, doesn't it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I've been keeping tabs on the LHC site and that article was linked through there. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the physics establishment.

E:

Motion of what?

J:

Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more wholistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular,or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E:

Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

J;

Sensory overload.

E:

In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J:

The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E:

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J:

"but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

I don't know that I'd say reality is what everyone can agree on. Ithink alot of the depth and complexity of reality and life is due to the fact that it is elemental to have opposing views. They don't cancel each other out, but balance each other in a larger reality.

E:

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J:

True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E:

Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J:

The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

E:

Before offering ideas we should do our homework. Tomorrow more.

J:

Homework for me always meant working outside.

Regards,

John

J: Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more holistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular, or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E: Isn't the notion universe holistic? While Rosen-bridge claims the opposite I do not yet see any chance to benefit from speculations that consider the world continued in excess of this logical encapsulation. As I confessed to Tejinder Singh, I consider it unlikely but not impossible that time and space have a discrete structure. At least I did not realize that any essay could envision something tangible in this direction. Aren't enough other questions to be tackled that might have a better chance to prove foundational? I maintain: A bundle of such questions goes back to insufficient distinction between past und future down to the denial of the necessity to revive an appropriate mathematical basis.

What is foundational? Spacetime is definitely foundational to the history of physics in the 20th century. Is it really foundational to physics for good?

J: Sensory overload. E: Thanks.

(E: ) In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J: The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E: Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei's sound principle of relativity while I understood "relativity" as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?

(E: ) Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a time-span "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J: "but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

E: At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

(E:) I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J: True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E: Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

(E: ) Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J: The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

E: Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Edwin,

You quoted: "This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Didn't my essay 527 last year claim that these options might have overlapped?

So far, I suspected all those who attacked transfinite numbers and SR to be just cranks. I beg FQXi for pardon if I have to admit that discussions here opened my eyes.

I do not yet entirely agree with John Merryman, and his mathematical background might be limited. Nonetheless I acknowledge his honest and perhaps correct attitude and decided to rate his essay together with the discussion it sparks worth 10. If you aren't one of the two 8 voters, I would like to ask you for doing the same.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

E:

Isn't the notion universe holistic?

J:

This goes to the understanding of what the prefix "uni" stands for. Does it mean "unit," or "unity?" One is a singular entity, which necessarily distinguishes between what is inside and what is outside. The other is connectivity. This distinction has great historical dimensions, as groups and organizations of people start out by defining their community in terms of connection and eventually this solidifies into an exclusivity which usually negates the essential nature and existence of whatever is outside, as the foundational philosophy becomes ever more hermetic. While this might seem unrelated to a discussion of scientific theory, the fact is that it forms how our minds function. As I point out in my essay, western thought is object oriented, while eastern thought is context oriented. We think in terms of units, while they think in terms of connections. So having originated from a western foundation, is it coincidental that we view reality in terms of scales of units, from subatomic particles, up to the entire universe existing as a singularity based unit? Then in the effort to make this philosophical projection hermetic, many complicating factors are trimmed away, thus we have light as these magic particles which pop into and out of existence, but cannot exist as anything but those irreducible objects. On the other end, we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.

E:

Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei's sound principle of relativity while I understood "relativity" as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?

J:

That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, it leaves the question of just what is space. There are a lot of precedents for it to have some foundational function, such as the idea of vacuum fluctuation. What is the vacuum, if not space. What would fluctuation be, but a disequilibrium, which implies the existence of an equilibrium. Then there are the myriad problems of trying to conceive of space as emerging from a point. One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light? If it was truly space expanding, wouldn't this foundational measure expand equally? Instead, Big Bang Theory simply assumes a stable speed of light, such that if the universe were to double in size, two sources x lightyears apart would be 2x lightyears apart. That's not expanding space, but an increased amount of stable space. I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity. Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.

E:

At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

J:

But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference. It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.

E:

Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

J:

Yes, but we are constantly encountering unpredictable input. The more we rely on past events to guide our actions, the less flexible we are in responding. Much as a computer that stores too much information will freeze. As long as our knowledge can incorporate new input, the future is an evolving continuation from the past, but when we can no longer incorporate new input, the future becomes a reaction to the past and the reset button gets pushed on that particular store of information. Evolution, vs. revolution.

E:

Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

J:

I was reading through it a few days ago and spend too much time thinking through the various points and ran out of time. Today, my ex called this morning and wants me to pick the daughter up at school, so time is running short again. Then I go to my second job, (for the ex, finishing up at her riding school) then tonight, If some part of the brain is still functioning, I'll try again.

Regards,

John

Eckard,

Edwin and I have some philosophical agreements, but we disagree on the necessity of Big Bang cosmology. Since it is foundational to his physics and I'm trying to refute it in this particular essay, he can't really afford to grade me too highly.

That I'm doing as well as I am surprises even me. He would be rating me in the community rating and those are the public ratings that are numbered. If you push the community ratings link at the top of the essay list, it will organize them in order of current preference, but not give any scores.

I guess the fact I only have two high scores on the public rating means 1) few are reading it, or 2) They down quite know what to make of it sufficiently to score it.

Thanks Edwin. That is a high compliment.

The politics of physics can be as interesting as the physics of politics, but in these discussions, what is most interesting is the physics of the politics of physics, as in many respects, it is a matter of trying to erect that formal top down structure to define the bottom up dynamics, with the various factions occupying the particular islands of their models of stability in this sea and froth of untamable energy.

The self styled masters of the universe perched in their ivory towers, like bankers in the skyscrapers of Manhattan, juggling multiverses like they were billion dollar derivatives.

Looking down the road, Humpty Dumpty comes to mind.

Amen.

Dear Tom,

J: ... we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.

E: To me the big bang is an unproven hypothesis, a challenge to find alternative explanations of red shift. I do not consider questions that can definitely not be answered foundational (in the sense of something that carries a building, not in the sense of providing money). So far I shared the opinion that time emerges because I mistook it in the sense that possibilities are coming reality.

(E:) Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?

J: That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, ...

E: Here you lost me because I refuse speculating without any tangible basis. How can motion and effect "emerge" prior to time, space energy and mass?

J: One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light?

E: Good point.

J: I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system ...

E: Is there "the" Cartesian coordinates?

J: ... is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity.

E: Hm. I am at variance with mathematicians because I consider points that are located within the continuum of real numbers as intangible as the center point of a ball. To me a line current is an ideal model and absolutely unrealistic.

J: Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.

E: Yes.

J:But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference.

E: Without integration we would not perceive anything.

J: It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it ...

E: A snapshot is an integration over a more or less extended part of the past.

J: ... and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It (is?) not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.

E: Our auditory sense is specialized to pick up and analyze temporal sequences. It cannot, of course, deal with the infinitely small very point of time. The input (not necessarily the source of sound) exists at caudal stages of the auditory pathway within windows of memory including the near past. The perspective is always backward.

Incidentally, I wonder why my voting did not have any visible effect.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

E:

Here you lost me because I refuse speculating without any tangible basis. How can motion and effect "emerge" prior to time, space energy and mass?

J:

Space=equilibrium. Disequilibrium= energy. (Fluctuating vacuum) Disequilibrium attempting to revert to equilibrium=mass. Changing configuration=time.

E:

Is there "the" Cartesian coordinates?

J:

Yes. Why does a mapping devise create space? With time, the changing configuration is being measured, but what is being measured by space? Distance? Volume? Space? Space is the primary axiom. The alternative is the proposition that everything, space included, emerged from the singular point. First the vacuum, then the fluctuation. Time and temperature are the vector and scalar of fluctuation/energy/mass.

I think lots of contestants are starting to vote, so it smoothes any particular votes.

Regards,

John

Dear John,

Is there "the" Cartesian coordinates?

J: Yes. ... what is being measured by space? Distance? Volume? Space? Space is the primary axiom.

E: At least I do not see any reason to speculate. I consider Cartesian coordinates a tool that enforces to arbitrarily choose an origin zero x,y,z=0 and the direction of x from zero to A which defines a planar area orthogonal to OA. The third choice is a point C in this area. If the distance OA is continuous then there are uncountably much of these choices.

J: I think lots of contestants are starting to vote, so it smoothes any particular votes.

E: Unfortunately, your rating 8 (two votes) remained unchanged after I voted 10.

Regards,

Eckard

1/3 APPLE 1/3 ORANGE 1/3 oRANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

1/3 F=MA 1/3 E=MC^2 1/3 E=MC^2= 1

Eckard,

It works just fine for geometry, but does it work for physics? This Big Bang model is based on the Cartesian formula and considers that all energy, as points of measurement, emerge from that point of origin and in doing so, create time and space as functions of measuring that emergence. The greater the distance, the more space and the greater the duration, the more time.

As I pointed out previously, this doesn't explain why the speed of light, as the most stable measure of space, remains constant. If space actually expanded, it would be like stretching a rubber ruler. No matter how far you stretch it, there are always just twelve inches, they just get bigger. Why, if space expands, does it take more lightyears to cover the same proportion of space, not that light speeds up and covers the same proportion in the same time. So there is a stable dimension of space.

Let's reconsider the order of development: Instead of zero being a point, say it is the blank space and instead of all energy emerging from just one point and expanding out, say that every point in space is just a little unstable and occasionally breaking into positive and negative elements. Geometrically all of space would expand, but since it would be confined by the fact that all other space is exerting equal expansion, the effect would be accumulations of this energy and the tendency for it cancel out through combinations of positive and negative polarities, but since every element is unique to its opposite, these attractions between opposites don't cancel out, but create mass, as stabilized structure. Eventually these combinations get so large and under pressure and heat that they break the bonds of attraction between the positive and negative elements, so that these energies, either radiate out, or fall ever further into ever denser accumulations. The swirl of which eventually reaches a center point and this vortex ejects the remaining energy out its poles. All of which radiates out for billions of lightyears, further disturbing the equilibrium of space and keeping the cycle going.

It's a bit simplistic, but it doesn't require the various incongruous patches required to make the current theory work. All from starting with a blank space and not a center point.

Those are the public votes. We vote as contestants and to figure that out, push the link at the top of the list of entries that orders the entries by community votes. It doesn't give numbers, but it shows the current order of preference. I gave you a ten as well. I must admit I went through a bunch of essays and voted on them, based on not perfectly rigorous standards, as there are so many and I've been pretty busy to fully read more than a small number. Even so, it doesn't take a full reading to see how much original thinking, effort, logic and following the rules was put into it. That said, I still probably judged less than 20%. If I was judging my own, I'd probably give it a 7. While I certainly agree with my own logic, I didn't really put the kind of effort required, but mostly just wanted to have an entry and went more for shock value and historical prescience, than trying to win the contest. Not that too many people will look back through these in some future date, but if they do, then it's on the record that I didn't believe in the logic of Big Bang cosmology.

John,

Thanks - I read the Disney article. I tried to open the Perez link but it is down. I will read the longer articles after I read a few more essays by the deadline. You know - I once wrote a crazy paper on Dark Energy that I sent to about a dozen physicists. In it (among other things) I asked: if the more distant galaxies are traveling faster than the nearer ones, but the light is older from the more distant galaxies, then doesn't that make a case for galaxies moving slower now than in the past and hint at deceleration???

Anyway - I hope you get a chance to read my essay before the deadline. I always look forward to your perspective.

Chris