What Is Reality In the Context of Physics? by Georgina Parry

Peter,

I hope you saw my reply to you and not just my moan about the public voting.

I really am glad that you liked my essay.Your encouragement is appreciated.

I guess its good that you are so enthusiastic.I am also passionate about this topic but I don't really see it as a battle of truth against lies but trying to find the very best explanation, which is probably still inadequate.

Its like chipping away until the argument can no longer be refuted and so has been expressed in a fully acceptable manner. I keep thinking that if I can say it in the right way then - eventually other people will agree. The blog forum disagreements or reluctance to accept what is said as valid is actually useful because it highlights where gaps in the argument need filling or expressing differently or I need to reconsider the ideas. I don't really want to antagonize those that disagree with me because they may come around to my way of thinking and even if not I would like to still be on speaking terms. It is a pity that those who have given me a low public vote have not commented on why they think that is all it deserves.

I am addressing the experimental question. It seems clear that although observed objects do not have absolute positions in space time, their position depending on observer perspective, they must have (scale dependent) super relative positions in space otherwise air traffic control would not be able to tell where the different aircraft are and they would be smashing into each other. They are not where they are seen by any one observer, (as the observers see images as they were at different times), but they are where they are at uni-temporal, objective Now.

I want to be fair and give other people the same consideration that I would like for my essay but it is impossible to read them all and impossible for me to fully grasp what is said in many of them. Not quitting yet but tired from reading too many ideas in such a short space of time, trying to make sense of it all. Too much coffee and not enough sleep.

Best of luck to you, Georgina.

Dear Readers,

There are three kinds of the essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such essays seem to have errors because they often contradict orthodox theory. 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain generally known physics' information copied from the textbooks or papers and author's commentaries (for example Jarmo Makela, Ian Durham, and so on). Such essays have ARTISTIC VALUE only but not scientific value; usually these essays-stories do not have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other published papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information. It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays rarely contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks.

What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories, we'll transform FQXi into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the jokes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr. Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create artistic essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is our purpose?

Since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: ''Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions'', therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original research rather than for essays-stories. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Constantine, that's a very brave thing to have said and which has a distinct ring of truth about it. I can't help but agree with your sentiments and rather heartily at that. Best wishes, Alan

Dear Georgina,

I wish to ask you a rather off-beat question, but it may help you somehow:

Q: Is there a bird species which only has the female migrating south for the winter, which leaves the male able to occupy and defend the best nesting site ready for the female and young the following summer?

Is this not a potentially rewarding strategy which an avian species seems to have yet discovered?

Best wishes, Alan

Dear Constanin,

You are correct. Under the 2/3 marks for interest it says that an original and creative essay is one that pushes forward understanding in a fresh way with new perspective.As it does also have to be technically correct and rigorously argued it is not just pulling those ideas out of thin air and throwing them together. As you have pointed out not all of the well written, accessible and technically correct essays are doing that.

The voting system is imperfect as there is no guarantee of consistency in how the essays are ranked by different voters and no one voter can thoroughly read and vote on all of them. However it is really good that the essays are available for everyone to read comment and vote on, rather than it being entirely conducted behind closed doors. We will at least know what the judges have to consider.I understand from Florin's comments in the blog forum that the community voting score is not visible to prevent some of the worst tactical voting that has occurred in previous competitions. It will be really interesting to see what the community has voted as the top essays when community voting closes. Potentially useful information for future competitions.

I gratefully take your post as support for my essay. Thank you very much.

Good luck, Georgina.

(This comment is respectfully offered in response to several previous posts)

An off-beat answer and question in the same thread:

Some species of penguins go north.

When walking above the huge, 2200 acre single living fungus in Oregon, is it possible to have some unknown energy between the fungus and human interact or occupy some of the same space? (I think so, and why not on a much grander, (universal) scale?)

A perspicatious view might offer a quicker and/or complementary resolution of a problem than a single focused direction. I'm glad variety is accepted into this contest. Thank-you FQXi.

Joseph Markell

Hi Alan,

I will keep it for future reference and if it proves useful I will have you to thank!! Lots to think about at the moment including your Archimedes screw, so I won't get sidetracked by puzzling over how it could be helpful right now.

Hi Joseph,

I agree the variety of entries is really good. Not just variety in how the competition question has been addressed but also the variety of style in which it has been done. However it has been done though, it ought to fulfill the competition criteria to score highly.It is good that FQXi has been so inclusive.

Yes there are two different ways of looking at a problem, breaking it down,and dealing with individual parts or looking at the big picture, how things are related and then dealing with what you have. Both can be successful. Perhaps in physics it is the relationships that have been somewhat overlooked in favour of the parts.

The fungus kingdom is a very weird collection of life forms. I haven't personally experienced an "unknown energy" between myself an a fungus but know that some have mind altering abilities. Have you come across this really bizarre one?

Georgina.

I think I may have been incorrect about the individual public votes. I hadn't been keeping track of the score but tried to work out what it must have been from memory. Thinking some more it might have gone 8,4 1, 9... instead. Which is actually worse!!! The actual numbers don't really matter it is still erratic voting that counts for nothing in the end. So if a member of the public wants to make a valid point about the quality of the essay why haven't they commented?

Why not leave a comment?

Fancy you should mention penguins Joseph. I was pleasantly mystified by your post and can't help but think that you've been influence by the Oregon vortex perhaps?! As to my quandry with migrating birds, I have a hunch that a species would have developed this strategy on the continent of Antarctica during it's course of drifting over the south pole. It would be worth migrating the 6000km fom one side of the landmass to the other when the sun finally dipped below the horizon.

Georgina: thanks for the link. Excellent new site for me to explore!

Dear Georgina:

Yours is one of the few essays I will take the time to seriously re-read. and mr. barbours and mr. rickles and maybe two or three more n the little timeleft to vote in the contest.

I do remember your threads past. they were insightful and inspired me to enter verry very late like the white rabbit.

anyway i vote for you now, and I vote high...

Sincerely,

TommySnake

Please see threads for my final equation on thematter. and for this conttest. for the next is already written....

than x again for you wise commenatry on my own meagre offerings.

TMG

Or Facebook. Or www.QuantumWidgets.com/FQXiEssayContest.html. I'm easy...

Dear Georgina:

Some other members have brought to my attention that they felt I was antognistic and intemporate in some of my threads to your essay.

I'm very sorry about that: I thought I was being clever, cheeky and ironic but apparently it came off as 'hostile'?

Again that was not my intent. Really I was just trying to find fault with an essay that didn't have many. It's hard to give decest criticm to an essay you secretly admire lol. All I can do is convince others of my sincerety by my content in future threads.

Good Luck again...

And that would indeed supply the motive for the nice little skirmish that has me embattled in my own thread, that seems to have nothing to do with reason and everything to do with personality.

Dear Tommy ,

Please be reassured that I am not offended by anything that you have said on this thread. You have a very informal and open style of communication and I have taken your messages to be humorous and well intended. I am delighted that you consider my essay worth re-reading and to be placed along with with Julian Barbour and Dean Rickles in having that honour. I really liked both of their essays.

It is also flattering to think that I have been at all inspirational. I think it is great that you entered your essay, what ever the final outcome. Don't put your self down. Your ideas have been read by far more people than if you hadn't entered and you will get further opportunities to fine tune them in the future. Everyone who has entered should be congratulating themselves for making a positive effort, having a go.Its better than not writing an essay and then just criticizing those that have.

Kind regards, Georgina.

Georgina

I've been hearing of (and encouraging) support for your essay, I think Joel Mayer scored it well. If I may I've just posted something on Dan Brugers string mentioning it, which I'd like to repeat here;

POST (Edited); Consider Einsteins "We should be able to explain physics to a barmaid." Grab a glass of beer and consider this;

A light pulse will go through the glass in say 1ns. If you're on a boat, a train or a planet light still takes 1ns to go through it. If you slide it along the bar, or move the light source, light takes 1ns to go through it. If you film it as it slides past you on the bar, you'll find the speed of the glass is added (or subtracted) to the light pulse speed. But as we can only see light at max 'c' SR says the glass has to shrink form our viewpoint as it goes past.

Hold on a mo! The light we see is that scattered by the beer molecules, and it travels to us at 'c', and we measure it at 'c'! Nothing breaks 'c' without needing length contraction!? Only ONE reference frame is valid, the same one as the glass, i.e. if you slide WITH the pint you're in the same frame so can't see it doing more, and WON'T see it doing more!! this is the same with a glass (n=1.55) of gas, plasma or a vacuum. There are infinite possible other observer reference frames, and as Einstein said "Infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion." This gives local reality with no inequality issue. (It's also consistent with the Postulates & Principle of SR, and Equivalence).

We've not fully understood inertial reference frames and the importance of observer frame. (read Georgina's important essay about concrete and 'apparent' realities.) Now trimmed with Occams razor they are intuitive. It's also consistent with the essays of Edwin Klingman, Constantinos Regazza, Robert Spoljjaric, Dan T Benedict, Rafael Castel and a number of others.

The consequences are quite massive and this 'discrete field' model seems able to remove paradoxes, offer solutions to a number of anomalies and explain how SR and GR can work with a quantum mechanism. It's difficult to visualise due to the additional dynamic variables, but the main problem we may have is 'belief'. It seems we have another picture engraved in our brain pattern which is difficult to let go of while considering other options.

For those interested the essay is at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Thank you Georgina.

Peter

Hi,

I have been having some discussion with Tom on the FQXI Time travel blog forum, and it is relevant to the viewpoints expressed in my essay.I think this post is particularly relevant, so I have copied it here.It demonstrates how failure to differentiate observed image from unobserved object leads to the apparent strangeness of space-time and quantum mechanics. "Image" is a reconstruction or representation formed from received data.

Tom,

Ken did a very good job of explaining static space-time, which was handy. I agree with you that mathematics alone does not obviously suggest the need for duel facets of reality. The world does.

If you look at the structure of the eye, peripheral nervous system and the CNS it is obvious that the cup that is observed via those systems can not possibly actually be the cup-object. Likewise the photograph of a cup can not be the cup-object. The observed image has to be a reconstruction from received data with time delay.

Therefore if it is always the reconstructed time delayed image that is observed, the object itself -can not- be seen. That does not mean that there is no object and -only- orphan images that materialise, with the appearance of an object, when the observer looks or that the cup-object exists spread continuously over time. If the image of an object is represented in the mathematics as the object then the -interpretation- will be incorrect, even if the mathematics itself is not incorrect.

[math]${\Delta}F=[{M^{\alpha}A_{t}}]^{\textit{h}_{s}}$[/math] is an equasion giving more detail to your explanation, of course all the variables need to be defined and described where the F=ma has evolved into something much richer. This equasion is easy to remember and incorporates scalar vector tensor like objects in the brackets and various expectation values or ghosts in the other part. I use this as a general conspectus in an abstract way to describe volution (involutes and evolutes). Eugene Winger wrote a paper about the unreasonable effectiveness of math.

Recently I was thinking about GPS and your radar station idea came up. One used to need great circles to locate a position with a parallel, meridian and elevation, but one also needs scale, a state or init to start off, so in this way one really needs exactly four GPS satellites to give positioning based on convergence of signals rather than great circles. If one thinks of grad, dot, cross and del being the arbitrary assignments of generalized positioning in reality....or as Newton's first and ultimate ratios bundled with root and square. The essential layers of analysis only go like this: delta, likelyhood, power, and power squared. Functions or signals propositions give a consonance to our basic vowels of representation of the fundamental stuff.

Any object of our reality should be able to have the exact sequence of four of those positioning steps. The object, its inverse, its transpose, then the object itself but not in the same place it was before. It is though the use of rising and falling factorials that we can get close. If Newton forgot to do anything with his third law which is represented by the formula above, he forgot to compaction the entire instant of universal time. I enjoyed sharing with you some thoughts prompted by your essay. This is the first fourmula in latex that I ever wrote. I think that it is so cool that we can do this in posts!

Hi Georgina, I doodled this last night. Thought you might be interested..Attachment #1: 3_Note1.jpg

Its reassuring that my explanation does fit with something you use.

I haven't thought about GPS much or how it works, or should work! Thank you- I have now had the delight of discovering pseudoranges and how they are currently used for global positioning (and algebraically proven by trilateration). I gather 4 satellites in range is ideal, to give best results from pseudorange intersection and correct for errors, though sometimes only 3 are detected. So any alternative method of positioning dependent on 4 satellites would not improve the current situation.

Is see radar stations operating weekly, which is probably why they came to mind instead of GPS. With the radar stations you are not just finding a position in space, but also a position in time. The object does not have that single space-time position according to any single observer observation because of the different time delays of the signals. So using multiple observers non simultaneity is overcome, although it is still a scale dependent observation and not an absolute position.

Yes, it is necessary to take account of signals because the signals generate the reality that is observed and experienced while the "fundamental stuff" that exists simultaneously, generates what happens and provides causality. I do not think it is necessary to combine both models into a singular more complex model when knowing how the two aspects of reality are related one should theoretically be able to calculate what has happened or what will be observed by using the two different models,image reality with space-time and object reality with uni-temporal time,in conjunction.

If temporal spread due to observer perspective is removed, not really compaction as you said but sort of unraveling or separation into the "preferred foliation" rather than having a completely non simultaneous universe one has an entirely simultaneous universe. Well one would end up with multiple "pages" of the uni-temporal object-universe in different arrangements- the historical sequence of foundational change. (These are not just the present at different times as the present belongs to space-time and contains the space-time distortion.) Only the arrangement at objective Now has concrete existence the others are just reconstructions of former configurations and change that has occurred. An instant in -that- uni-temporal object-universe would be an instant of absolute time. Much respect to Sir Issac Newton. He knew the difference between relative and absolute and despite the measurement problem, he did not abandon the absolute, unlike Albert Einstein.

Regarding an instant ,in order to be considered as time there has to be a change occurring either in spatial arrangement or object-universal position. So that there can be earlier and later (or before and after) otherwise it ceases to be time and is just static. Like water flowing through one's fingers. Without spatial change there is no flow. The object in that instant, and every instant, is inseparable from the spatial change (which on the universal scale probably includes rotation, translation and scaling transformation) IE. movement which is also energy. The sequence of such uni-temporal instants would give the preferred foliation necessary for consideration of causality at the foundational level.

You have written one more latex equation than me. I agree it is a cool feature.So glad you read my essay and that it has prompted some thoughts.

Ms. Parry,

I read your essay with great interest. Glad to see that you have entered the competition. As always, we appear to be in fundamental agreement about the underlying nature of reality and about our perceptions thereof.

While not intending to be critical, I admit that I found some passages of your essay a bit difficult to follow, due at least in part to the difficulty of expressing complex ideas via the often too blunt instrument of English. It is difficult to compress an entire view of reality into the confines of a necessarily brief essay, but I think you've succeeded nicely in conveying some fundamental concepts.

Your kind mention of my earlier FQXi essay in your list of references did not go unnoticed and is deeply appreciated.

Good luck in the competition!

Best Regards,

jcns