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

Hi Georgina,

The theories evolve,it's a real road of harmonization in fact. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we desagree, sometimes, we doubt, sometimes we are sure, sometimes ....once upon a time...the sphere ...and its spheres.....and this SPHERE........

I wish you a good contest.

regards

Steve

Madam,

Your essay is quite thought provoking. However, we find some discordant notes not because of your approach, but because of the approach of mainstream physics that needs a re-look.

You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality. Though it contains Mc Taggart's "A series of time", past present and future, it does not include "B series time", which is passage of time or change along a sequence spanning earlier to later. Used alone Space-time allows the possibility of time travel and associated paradoxes, is a completely deterministic static model that denies free will and does not allow causality due to non simultaneity of events".

One basic problem is that in mainstream physics, most terms are not precisely defined, but only an operational definition is given, which is often manipulated for proving different mutually inconsistent theories. We have briefly discussed this problem in our essay and elaborately discussed in various posts here. Regarding time and time travel, you may refer to those. Regarding Einstein's views, we have elaborately discussed below the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet and others. Relativity is a wrong description of facts due to the simple reason that if two frames of reference are not related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then the actions in each cannot be related to that of another. If both the frames of reference are related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then relativity vanishes. This is the A-time, B-time and C-time proposed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Here C is the special preferred frame of reference. Thus, the relativity term simply vanishes. We have also shown that the length measurement system advocated by Einstein is wrong as described below:

Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which became his celebrated paper on SRT. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer any clarification.

Regards,

basudeba

Ahh no, I'm not advocating the idea of a medium at all. I don't believe in Einstein's spacetime contiuum idea. I'm suggesting that the graviton can be modelled by an Archimedes screw analogy. It's the mechanical structure of reality which gives a particle a wave nature. It's this helical structure which can give a particle the ability to induce a force of attraction when it interacts with another particle. If this helical screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy.

I'm sorry, but I was only able to skim read your essay as I have a non-mathematical background. You seemed to have the idea of visualisation of reality w.r.t the the Young's slit experiment as being of paramount importance. This is what prompted me to reply. Kind regards, Alan

Georgina,

Do you know that you made the 'Front Page" of fqxi.org? If not go to 'Home'.

James

Okay, sorry, I think I got mixed up with another essay I had read. My problem is that you start with the assumption that Einstein's spacetime continuum is written in a tablet from god. What I'm saying is that if you take a step back, a particle model of gravity from Newton's era would negate the need for his spacetime continuum. This has been overlooked imo. You won't agree with me of course, which is okay. Good luck in the competition Georgina.

Dear Georgina,

Certainly we will agree on that the question of synchrony is worth clarification. Because my reasoning led me to suspicions, I will collect and check related arguments. I already put some questions to Peter and I guess he will need some time for an easily understandable and convincing reply.

What about Basudeba, I am disappointed because I found in his essay much less than in his comment here.

Unfortunately my command of English is perhaps too poor. What did you mean with "discounted": rejected, ignored, or made cheaper?

You are using the expressions "object universal position" and "object universal perspective". I know "the object" and "to object". Could I read your "object" as the adjective "objective"?

Given I observe a process, then I am of course as real as is the process. Let's consider Cebel seconding a duel on pistols between Abel and Bebel. The time of flight from Cebel to Abel or to Bebel must not give Abel a chance that is different from Bebel's chance to fire first. Do you agree? Do we need an universal perspective?

Regards,

Eckard

Hands-up Georgina, you're right and I'm wrong! I've now read your essay more slowly and thoroughly I can see the error of my ways. I only have 2hrs a day of internet time via the library and so I tend to glance and skim read without thinking about it anymore! Okay, I see that you say:

"Gravity is not due to curvature of space- time, as space time is an image reality, an "illusion", and not object reality with concrete realism. The curvature of space-time is an interpretation fitting the observation of

image reality, not underlying object reality. If space-time reality is an illusion, as confessed by Einstein, there must be other cause for gravitation than curvature of a non existent space-time manifold. Mass does not

cause gravity merely by its stationary presence in space-time but because the body is following a trajectory through space and affecting the environment through which it passes, causing the observed gravitational

field effect."

What I'm sayting is that the term "mass" is the problem. Object reality has the property of structure and not "mass". If object reality was thought about a little more by Newton and his contempories then a structural image with ORIENTATION would have been devised. This is the only object reality which allows a force of attraction at a distance to be achieved. It's the analogy of the helical screw, and so would have been accessible to Newton and others. It can also easily explain dark energy, if a wraparound universe is envisaged. Now, if you will be kind enough to keep an open mind despite my poor introduction to your essay, will you spend some time to consider my point of view please??

Congratulations Georgina! How exciting it is that I know someone famous! :-D

Jason,

as if, :-D

Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo.

Madam,

While addressing you, we were not referring to your persona, which is very private to you. We were addressing your intellectual acumen, which is very much in the public domain and which must be respected. It has no name.

By discordant notes we mean the tendency to follow the herd and jump where the earlier of the species jumped, even when such a jump may not be necessary and may prove fatal. The founders of modern science were great men, but they were not blessed with the tremendous advancement made by current technology. Thus, what they thought were not wrong in their context (except for some very serious mistakes, where novelty overtook correspondence to reality and manipulation overtook logical consistency). Personal standing of the scientist also became more important than theoretical deductions. We will give you a few examples to prove this statement:

1) Poincare deduced the equation e = mc^2 in 1900, but Einstein, who derived the same equation 5 years later, got the credit for the same.

2) Eddington publicly humiliated Subrahmanium Chandrasekhar thereby delaying Noble Prize for the same work by 50 years.

3) Eddington's "proof" of the victory of Einstein's theory over that of Newton was not based on facts, but because of his public standing with the media. There has been much comment on this subject lately.

4) The "proof" of time dilation of atomic clocks that was taken around the globe is a manipulated one that can be verified from the documents relating to original readings that are still available in archives.

5) The value of G measured precisely is not the same as that measured earlier. But the theories using the earlier value is still accepted without any question.

Since many theoretical scientists are leading a cozy life at public expenses by dishing our fantasies in the name of science (LHC up-gradation is one example, while Tevaton is closing down). They have a vested interest in what they call "main stream physics" and term any one deviating from that as "dirtying" their "clean" thread. This loot of public money pains us.

The need of the hour is to dump the whole of physics, list out the data made available from latest observations and reformulate the theories from the scratch. No amount of patch work will help. We are happy to find out that you have come out with some original ideas. The discordant note related to the few links in your essay to the "official" physics, some of which does not bear scientific scrutiny.

We have formulated an alternative model deriving from fundamental principles that can explain most interactions without relativity and by demystifying quantum physics. But then we are not an academician nor a research scientist.

Thanks and regads,

basudeba