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

Dear Georgina,

Your last post prompted me to write and say hello. A corollary might be,

"We have all the time there is." -- Charles Ingles in Little House on the Prairie.

Time is a thought provoking and valuable thing.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Hello Russel,

Sandy Denny's beautiful voice is a hard act to follow. Though I do like "We have all the time there is." It works on many levels. Thank you. I can also think of many occasions when it would be useful to remember it.

Perhaps time has just been too baffling, and so has not been given as much thought as it has deserved over the last 100 years. Many people just seem to give up and say "we can't understand it, so why bother thinking about it?"

It does not seem to be any -thing- at all of itself. Even aging is being gradually deciphered as various structural material changes rather than inevitable, irreversible, process linked to time. Which seems to make time a very valuable, irreplaceable, nothing, which is still not as generally thought provoking as it ought to be...

Kind regards, Georgina.

That is an incredible song! It communicates that our true reality may be in the relationships with those around us. Thank you for posting the link! And, good points about aging not being purely linked to time.

What actually produces time is a different kind of reality. No one knows for sure, but there is an interesting idea worth exploring. Perhaps in the last 100 years we have had the data to define time all along, and there may be yet another angle that can help figure it out. I'm thinking specifically of the well-known mass-energy equation, E = mc2. If we look at the units of c2, they are length2/time2 -- the units of motion. The mass could be considered a scalar modifying a maximum possible motion.

Now if we change our view a little more, we might consider c2 to be a potential within the quantum vacuum that actually drives the motion of mass, which is made of particles with internal motion, to produce energy. If this is an accurate viewpoint, the potential then defines length and time.

Surprisingly, Einstein's equation could help explain quantum mechanics after all as the potential drives internal particle motion. What defines the potential? That could possibly be the limitation of what can be known in physics.

Well, I don't know, but that gives a simplified idea. There are so many aspects of how to look at reality. Your link to the song provides a great example of that.

Kind regards, Russell

I am posting this here as I put it in the wrong place on the Digital or Analogue thread and do not want it just getting lost. I think it might be useful. I would appreciate any constructive feedback.

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT

Talking of terminology past, present, and future are insufficient and confusing as terms in physics imo. They refer to space time experience which can be different for each observer, according to reference frame. The relative quality of those terms is often not fully appreciated and the present may be assumed to be and used as if singular and absolute when it is not. How can this be improved. My current thoughts are ...

There needs to be the equivalent of a future which is nothing but potential and probability, nothing existing that has been actualized, P.stage (Potential, probability). Then there needs to be actualising reality. This is where spatial material changes occur sequentially, the causality front, or unitemporal time. A.Stage,(Actualisation). Then comes the receipt of the data from the actualised reality, giving a manifest appearance. This is the equivalent of the present, which is different for each observer due to different transmissions delays for each reference frame and position, M stage(Manifestation); and then the stage of storage of events in memories or data banks etc. The equivalent of the past. R stage,(Records).

Quantum physics is dealing more with P and A stage but trying to relate it to M stage. Relativity is dealing with M stage and R stage and does not assume any P stage or A stage , as everything, past, present and future is modeled to co exist in space-time.As it is using individual observer experience of manifest reality for the model.

The sequence is P, A , M, R. Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records. As data accumulates in R it can be seen to build up but is not building up -from- there. The only place where material spatial change is occurring is at A, the receipt of data giving M stage is also occurring within A.

To tie in with John's point, does tomorrow become yesterday? Yes because tomorrow is first potential and probability, then actualized events, then manifest events and then records of events. Does yesterday become today -no not really. What still exists from yesterday is part of today. It was actualised and has remained actualized so it is a continuation rather than a becoming.It may exist both in R and at A because it was formerly actualised and manifest and is still actualised.

Actualisation has to come before manifestation because data must be transmitted to the detector, (which is not instantaneous) and then the manifest reality must be formed by the observer from the received data, (which is not instantaneous). The manifestaion that is observed is created by the observer from the received data and does not prexist that occurrence.(Cf. wave function collapse.) The actualised but unobserved reality must preexists the observed manifestation enabling data to be available from which the manifestation of reality is formed.

Relativity is only concerned with the manifestation of reality, so can not account for such things as causality, non determinism, it does not have an open future.Quantum physics is concerned with probabilities becoming actualized and manifest reality and does not fit with space time. It is dealing with P stage becoming A stage and attempting unsuccessfully to fit with space-time M stage.

Having the whole sequence of stages P, A , M, R, allows the relationship between QM and relativity to be seen in a new way. What is happing at the P to A stage of reality will not fit observation of the M stage, because it is not the same phenomenon at all.Sequential actualization allows passage of time. There is no passage of time in relativity as such only observer perspective giving the manifest reality.

Dear Georgina,

Marvelous outside the box thinking, and I have to say I agree. There is one thing I wonder about. Is there something, that we have not yet identified, necessary to keep it all going?

Kind regards, Russell

Russel,

thank you so much. I am so glad to hear the words "I agree".It is a rare treat.

Re keeping it going, a few thoughts. The expanding universe, and its cold death are ideas that have come from observation of the manifestation of reality (image reality) rather than being the object-universe at unitemporal Now. So it is a giant conceptual error imo.

In nature the rotation of the earth, affect of the sun and moon lead to currents of air and water that give heat flows that would not be predicted for an isolated system without those inputs. Likewise in nature small changes can build into much larger ones as seen in weather systems, which might seem to be working against increase in entropy. This sort of thing makes me think that the whole object-universe may be a giant feedback loop and to abuse Newtons first law -A universe in motion continues in motion (unless acted upon by universe stopping force!)I don't think anyone is turning the handle.

I am also interested in hearing where your wondering may have taken you.

Dear Georgina,

We need more agreement on the good points don't we!

Your Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records sequence makes good sense and makes a nice framework. In particular the Potential and Actualisation aspects are where my wondering has taken me. Roger Penrose is suggesting we look at existing data from new angles to see if new results natuarally fall out. It seems like that is what you are doing as well. Very interesting stuff!

Kind regards, Russell

Dear Russel,

I see that your whole essay is about a preliminary theory of what "keeps it going." I am sorry I have not read it earlier. There were just too many essays to read all of them. Now that the community voting stage of the competition is over I have lost the motivation to keep on reading essays, though I know there are lots of good ideas in them.

I will comment on your essay, on your thread, when I have had time to read it thoroughly. For now, I liked the fan analogy and the diagrams make it very clear. I have talked about a 4th dimension on this web site quite a bit, so I understand exactly why you are talking about it and why you have considered it necessary. Though my opinion has changed slightly over time. I now think it has to do with relative perspective and the 3 dimensional framework not allowing for continuous spatial change that is not directly observed. So it is quite probably a representational problem rather than an actual extra spatial dimension,imo. Anyway give me some time to carefully read and think and I will get back to you.

Kind regards, Georgina.

Dear Georgina,

Very neat! Thanks for reading my essay. Good thoughts on the representational problem of unobserved change, which I will ponder. Glad to hear any further thoughts you have.

Kind regards, Russell

I am going to try to attach a diagram which sets out the explanatory model of reality under discussion in my essay and shows how QM and relativity are related to it.It is a useful summary and helps to clarify the relationship of the ideas.

I hope this demonstrates more clearly that this is not at all woolly or unclear thinking, or entirely abstract and irrelevant to QM or relativity.It clearly shows how the two physics models are looking at different aspects of reality and therefore can co-exist without being contradictory.

Please excuse the homemade quality of the diagram. I could have spent longer on making a beautiful professional quality graphic but it would not convey any more information.Attachment #1: diagram002.jpg

Actually that really is the homemade version. I had a better one which I had cleaned up!! Still it shows that cut and stick is still alive and well in the digital age.

This is the cleaned up version.

Here is the cleaner version!

OK now I get it, the cleaned version was too big. So this is a smaller file of the same thing. All the same info but should now load. Much clearer as not so messy.

Reality in the context of physics, in simple diagrammatic form for those who find verbal description more difficult to follow.Attachment #1: RICP_diagram.jpg

Dear Georgina,

This is in response to your comments on the "Standard Model Begger" blog.

I had posted the following statements:

1. In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality.

2. QM has ONE element of reality, the wavefunction.

3. QM addresses 'particle/wave' physics, which has ONE element of reality.

4. 'Particle plus wave' physics has TWO elements of reality.

5. QM cannot address BOTH elements, 'particle plus wave', with the wavefunction.

6. If reality consists of 'particle plus wave', then QM is incomplete.

7. If reality is 'particle plus wave', then QM arguments against it are irrelevant.

Notes:

a. Florin has rejected the logic of step 1, but step 1 is not a statement of logic, it is a definition.

b. Florin claims 'particle plus wave' means Bohm's theory, but my essay describes a theory of particle plus wave and it is *not* Bohm's theory.

c. I am sincerely interested in the above logic, which I believe to be correct. Can anyone argue these points without descending into irrelevant history or polemics. Each statement seems to stand alone. Which statement, if any, is incorrect?

You then commented:

Dear Edwin,

I don't disagree with any of those statements.I have added a diagram to explain how I see QM and relativity being related to the entirety of reality, on my essay competition thread. It is easy to follow so might be accessible to the mathematically minded who dislike long verbal descriptive ramblings.

It shows how QM relates to one facet of reality and relativity the other. The particle idea belonging with the structure of the relativity model, which is a model of the observed manifestation of reality and the wave function belonging to QM , which is a model of the unobserved reality becoming manifest. It shows how wave function collapse is related to observation. The diagram shows that both models are part of a fuller description of reality and neither is sufficient on its own.

I think it is relevant to the discussion you are having with Florin, and would also appreciate any feedback on its structure.

My response:

Without reviewing all of the above discussion, I may misinterpret something, but here goes:

It would appear that the QM wave functions in your diagram are the 'outer layer' of reality. There are many who interpret this to be true. But David Berlinski has remarked that "The wavefunction of the universe is designed to represent the behavior of the universe--all of it... Physicists have found it remarkable easy to pass from speculation *about* the wave function of the universe to the conviction that there *is* a wave function of the universe."

He concludes that 'quantum cosmology' is a branch of 'mathematical metaphysics'.

That fairly accurately represents my own thinking.

From my essay you may recall that I begin with the gravitational field and attempt to derive all physics from it. The evolution of this field leads to the circulational aspect (the C-field) condensing into local particles (the particles of the Standard Model). Each particle in motion induces a gravito-magnetic circulation analogous to the way in which electric charge in motion induces an electromagnetic circulation.

This leads to each locally real particle being inescapably accompanied by a local field with wave-like character, hence "particle plus wave". This is essentially different from the dualistic 'particle/wave' of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Because quantum mechanics is based on the 'wavefunction' it does not describe the local particle, and must use a 'superposition' of wave functions in order to model or describe the local particle. This is only partially successful, as this wavepacket does not hold together but disperses. And when the local particle is detected in one place, it is necessary for the wavepacket to 'collapse'. Belief in this 'fictitious particle' then leads to non-locality and other 'weird' ideas. And because QM does not have an element that corresponds to the local particle, QM is incomplete. And the current reigning ideas are those that have been developed based upon this incomplete theory, but are believed by the practitioners of the QM school of faith.

The relevance of this to your diagram, at first glance, is that the local particle plus (C-field) wave are the "Object reality" that exhibits mass, energy, charge and spin and interacts with the gravitic and electromagnetic fields. The QM wave-functions are the incomplete descriptions, interpreted as probabilities, and mistakenly assigned an objective reality by some.

The rest of your diagram, to the extent I have studied it, appears reasonable and realistic. I may have more to say after I've had a chance to study your work in more detail.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin ,

Thanks for taking a look. I did not want to interfere with the great discussion occurring on that thread but it seemed relevant at that point. I am not sure what each of the different theorists mean by "The Universe." They might be talking about all of the potentially observed universe or all that exists in time and space? They are, it can be seen from the diagram, different things- both with the potential to be regarded as The Universe, in their own right. Which is the real Universe? The one that can be observed or the one that is? Well it is both, so there two versions of The Universe.

The whole Object-Universe could potentially be described by a universal wavefunction but it does not take account of the other version of The Universe which is formed by the observer from received information. So it has to be incomplete. Down the bottom of the diagram it shows the overlap of QM with observed reality which has been called wave function collapse. The local particle is manifest within the Image- reality formed by the observer. Which is not a part of the Object- reality that exists without observer interaction. Most importantly this allows both QM and relativity to be mathematically correct, as has been found- without contradiction.

The particles (whatever they are) and medium are within the object reality but undetectable, this, I think, also might be described by your local particle plus c field. Most mainstream physics has come from observation of the manifestation of reality, Image reality. So we know the manifestaion of them but not their origin. I have speculated the fundamental forces are a disturbance or perturbation of the medium of object reality (which you are calling the c field.)

I have a nasty cold?flu bug and chest infection so haven't felt up to improving the diagram presentation or describing what it shows. I think its pretty straight forward and nothing that I haven't talked about before. If you can just get the time to familiarise yourself with it it might not seem so complicated. I acknowledge that it initially looks complicated but actually it is also fiendishly simple.It is just the combination of sets and flow chart that Ray suggested I produce a very long time ago. Which makes it easy to follow at a glance compared to longer verbal description.

Georgina,

Thank you for your kind words on my semi-satirical essay. Your metaphysics are also most interesting. The important thing is to keep the pressure on the mainstream: they never seem to get it right. It's the outliers (Black Swans) that seem to make the differences, even though "There are no loner penguins." I posted one more time about the so-called constant c, because this penguin's intuition is that it's a singular non-homogeneity.

John M.

John,

thank you for your messages here and on your own thread. I am very glad that you have found my ideas interesting.I have tried to pin them down in an understandable, correct and acceptable way. I may still not have succeeded yet. I hope the diagram I have posted on this thread might be a way for the more mathematically minded to easily access ideas and how they fit together. I intend to make a smarter looking diagram that fits the page soon. (Still recovering from a nasty cold.)

Your remark concerning Black swan theory is relevant. Who knows when the Black swan will appear, or be recognized for what it is? I think Max Tegmark's opinion "it is much better that we bark up many trees rather than all barking up the same tree." is also very relevant. Some will be barking up the wrong trees but there is no shame in that. It is just the nature of the hunt for something very elusive and difficult to capture in adequate words or mathematics.Of course I think there might be something "really real" in mine, but thats only natural!

Georgina parry.

Georgina,

Exactly right regarding the search for the veritas (the right tree) - who knows which one it will be. You have a gift for phrasing and idea density which I find most admirable and interesting. I hope you are or will become a mentor or teacher (professor) of these metaphysics for those younger than us. Well done. John M.