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

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

Dear Eckard,

I am sorry for the delay in replying to your queries.I am also sorry for the ambiguity in my previous reply to you. It is helpful to me too, to discover these ambiguities that make my explanations less clear than they might be.I can then try to avoid them.I am glad that you brought it to my attention.

I mean by discounted, in this case, ignored. The observer is as real as the object. But the observation made by the observer is of the image not the object itself. Object as I am using it, refers to a material thing with full realism even without the possibility of direct observation.It is not dependent upon observation or conscious experience to bring it into existence. Like the magician's rabbit, it does not have to be seen to be real. So the observer perspective can be ignored when this facet of reality is under consideration.

I am using the term Object as a substitute for objective (which has the counterpart subjective.) As I do not wish to discuss in this essay only subjective human experience but a physical process occurring irrespective of consciousness. It has been argued by some quantum physicists that conscious awareness is necessary for decoherence to occur but I am saying this is not necessarily so. As there can be inanimate image reality generation. (It requires only a reality interface such as a photographic plate.)

Image, as I am using it,is a generated representation of the object. It has some similarity to the object or source of the data used to form the image. It is not formed from the same material. It could be an image on film , a sound recording, a visual experience generated by the visual cortex of the brain for example.

When we are referring to the Object reality, then a universal perspective is not necessary. Objects have actual, ever changing position, that do not rely upon frame of reference. That is the "really real" non relativistic reality. If it was possible to instantly measure distance between each particle and object as you have said A to B must be equal to B to A, it could be mapped. However such measurement is not possible.

When object and observer are spatially separated and measurements are made it is the appearance of reality, the image, that is observed not the underlying reality. There is delay in transmission of the data and a temporal distortion creeps in to the measurement. Only with an Object universal perspective could the absolute trajectory be ascertained and a non relativistic position at which an object existed in the universe be known.

We also do not have that universal perspective. Therefore we must be content with a "half way house". A super relative position which is obtained from trajectory observation of a number of observers in different frames of reference. By finding the overlap of those trajectories a position can be found that the object must have occupied in order to generate all of the different trajectory observations. The different observers are seeing the object at different times due to differences of data transmission time.

I am using the term Object universe to distinguish it from the space-time image reality universe. I has no time dimension but exists as a uni-temporal structure.

I have not yet read Basudeba's essay but will do so soon.I am also mindful that I must also re read and consider your own, Ewin Klingman's and Peter Jackson's essays.It is too much to accomplish all at once.

Best regards, Georgina

Hi Georgina,

I don't see how you can speak of a "reality interface" (which you allow can be either organic or inorganic) without implying that there is something special about the sensing mechanism that differentiates it from the observer effect in quantum mechanics. Indeed, you take pains to describe the mechanics of sensation -- biological sensation. Quantum mechanics, however, already identifies the observer with the act of observation and makes no differentiation between the reality interface of the human observer and the particle detector.

Assuming that nonhuman particle detectors do not analyze and interpret data, then there must be something different in the biological mechanism by which one creates the personal picture of reality that you describe.

You write: "We can only 'see' what we choose to observe and are capable of observing." That's absolutely true. That's what the quantum mechanical observer effect describes.

You write: "The time dimension does not pertain to Object reality, only Image reality." That's also true, and also subsumed by (nonrelativisitc) quantum mechanics. The phenomenon of nonlocality, without which quantum mechanics is incoherent, assures us that quantum configuration space (object reality) cannot map to local space (image reality) without a nonlocal model. The time operator in quantum mechanics is unity.

You don't need to deny relativity, however, to affirm the truth of quantum mechanics. They are two different things, and in every case put to the test, are both true.

In my forum, you emphasized the importance of encouragement along with criticism. You have forgotten, however, that I long ago encouraged you, in the forums, to pursue your ideas in terms of brain mechanics and the physics of consciousness. Here and elsewhere, I have spoken of brain science as the next great frontier of human knowledge.

You along with others often accuse me of not having read what you have written. There is bitter irony in this for me. If you all knew the extent of my lifelong disorder -- the compulsion to read everything intensely and repeatedly, not just literature, but instructions, laundry tags, road signs, warnings, logos, tattoos, everything -- you might feel differently.

I wish you the best. In this contest and every other aspect of your life, whatever you make of reality. I can't do more than that.

Tom

Dear Georgina,

I have responded to your post on my essay page.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Hi Georgina,

I didn't make any arguments about absolute time and space. That's the Newtonian model. In relativity, it is only spacetime--the combination--that is absolute and physically real in general relativity.

My objections to Edwin's theory are clear enough and I won't rehash them. However, I can't see why you keep insisting that I didn't read your paper when I explicitly cited points you made that are subsumed by quantum mechanics. And now you've just brought up the same points again. Let me see if I can explain it another way:

In quantum mechanics, time is unity. That is, it drops out of the equations. Why not set it to zero, then? -- because the dynamics of quantum mechanical interactions, unlike general relativity, do not allow space collapsed to a point (singularity) which is where the physics of general relativity ends. (That's why we use 2 dimensional mathematics in the Hilbert space to calculate the outcome of quantum events.)

So your "uni-temporal" time is identical to the way time is treated in quantum theory, and observer dependent as you allow, with incomplete information on the state of a particle as measured. "Distorted spacetime" is how time is treated in general relativity, i.e., warping caused by the presence of matter. The observer dependency here is that the warping or distortion we measure is only the result of measuring changes in position among mass points, never spacetime points. That's why information about the state of spacetime is incomplete in quantum mechanics but reconciled in general relativity by Lorentz invariance, the physics of "empty space."

I appreciate that you seem obsessed over the grandfather paradox in general relativity, but this is really more science fiction than science. It comes about as the alternative to what was once thought a paradox, but is not. This is the so-called twin paradox, where a fast-travelling twin ages slower than one who stays at home. Because the physics is not symmetric, however, we know that it's not true time-reversed symmetry and thus no paradox. The grandfather paradox on the other hand is based on the classical requirement of time symmetry, the fact that the equations operate as well backward in time as forward. While this is true, the popular implications of "tinkering with the spacetime continuum" are not physically justified. Einstein's (Minkowski's) spacetime continuum is constrained by 3 1 dimensions. A four dimension (indeed, any even dimension) model that includes time, is orientable. This means that one direction is just as good as the other, whether forward or backward in time; the trajectory may be differently oriented, but the passage of time is the same. IF it is possible to travel to meet one's grandfather in a singularity, and IF it possible to kill one's grandfather at that point (real big IFs where the physics is unknown) even that event would not affect the "real" 3 1 spacetime outside the singularity. It would only imply what quantum mechanics already knows, that in Eddington's words "Something unknown is doing we don't know what." That's not paradox. That's nature.

I'm familiar with Julian Barbour's work. I plan to leave a note.

Best,

Tom

Georgina,

You have a new post on Michael Jeub's Forum.

Dear Tom,

It is good to hear from you. Perhaps argument was not the correct word to use I should perhaps have said absolute time and space came into the discussion.

I am not insisting that you did not read my paper merely saying that I am unsure because of the limited feedback that has been received.I am delighted if you have actually read it. Thank you.

Yes that is the point . Uni-temporal time makes it possible to fit with quantum mechanics. I am giving a -physical reason- why there has to be a uni-temporal time at that foundational level but a spread of time in the space-time continuum. So this overcomes the puzzle of why the two will not fit.I think that is important.

I am not obsessed by the grandfather paradox but it is important to me. A paradox shows that something is not as it should be. Ridiculous proposals that nature somehow forbids the traveler from killing his grandfather or that the whole scenario is conducted over parallel time lines in different universes is contrived and unnecessary.

But I am saying it is not an unknown unknown Tom. One can not travel through time that does not exist.Thinking the model is the territory is the problem here. Something else Julian Barbour has brought up.

We do have to be donkeys and not philosophers here. It is not quantum mechanics or relativity. If each camp is represented by a pile of hay , the sensible donkey finds a way to eat both. He will not remain undecided and starve and he will not content himself with just one of the two piles.

I am interested in what you have to say to Julian Barbour. See you there.

I do not name the medium or observed field in space time within my essay. It is unfortunate that I have here referred to the field through which electromagnetism passes as the EM field, as that term is used for the field produced by charged particles and -only that-. I am referring to a field that exists WHETHER OR NOT charges are present. The EM field produced by the charged particles will be just another kind of disturbance or perturbation of the -PRE-EXISTING field, as are gravity and magnetism.

The different manifestations observed in space-time depend on what is occurring within the unobserved medium of EM transmission. An idea that I first discussed in Eternity Found 2007. So the field in space time relating to the medium of EM transmission in unobserved reality needs another name or EM field is extended to refer to all manifestations of a disturbance of underlying medium. I do not yet know if Eugene Klingman's C field is the same.I will endeavor to study his essay this weekend.

Hello Georgina,

Feels like picking up where we left off in our blog discussions many months ago! I certainly am with you on a call for greater 'physical realism' in physics.

Concerning your explanation of the double-slit experiment, however. I am not drawing any conclusions. I have my own explanation on this as you know. Just trying to understand your ideas better.

Is it accurate to say that you hold on to a 'particle view' of electrons etc. being 'fired' following a path trajectory to the screen? That you are adding to this view an 'unobservable ocean' (ether?) that fills space. That this 'unobservable ocean' makes the waves as the particles traverse from 'source to screen'?

If so, then a good analogy to this, I think, is the 'pattern of debris' on a sandy beach deposited there by waves washing ashore. Thus, where there is more 'wave action' on shore, you also have more deposits, while where there is less wave action you have less. If so, this idea may be verifiable by experiment, where the waves in a tank go through a double-slit and interfere, and the 'seeds' they carry get deposited on a sandy platform. Just a thought ...

Constantinos

Hi Geogina,

You have started your essay with Einstein words (the same I used in mine). However, in contrary, you seem to disagree. I shall recommend you very interesting point of view on H. Being's perception (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf) that seems to support Einsten's view. The publication has amazing conclusions.

You claim: "Objects spatially separate from an observer are not sensed directly, due to transmission delay between reflection or emission of potential data and its receipt." That is very important and it will help me to develop my concept.

You are pro in biology so the evolution theory is very familiar to you. In my essay I apply the theory to support a concept that the reality evolved from analog to digital and the common ancestor is a primordial conformally flat spacetime. I am interested in your opinion.

You are the most active in reading and commenting so the next question to you is: what do you think about the essays in general. Do they conform to the evaluation criteria: to be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience as well as clearly written? I found somewhere an opinion that many of them do not (probably of someone from the public because I cannot find an essay by the guy).

Best regards,

Jacek

Dear Jacek,

really good to hear from you. It has been so quiet here lately that I have started blithering nonsense to myself and then tying myself up in it. I am really glad if something I have said in my essay has inspired your own thinking.

I do agree with what Einstein expressed but not with the word -merely-.Einstein considered his space-time continuum to be the foundational reality when in fact I has to be a higher level of reality generated from data that has taken time to be received. He was not a realist and having rejected Newtonian ideals believed the space-time continuum was all that is, was and will be. It is a kind of illusion, he simply called it reality rather than seeing it as part of a greater reality.He leaves out a whole other facet. No wonder there were unsolved questions and paradoxes.

Only by having a co-existing reality without time dimension can it be resolved. When I say something like that people start to say you can't get rid of time there has to be time. I have even been berated as a "time denier" on the fqxi forum by a certain gentleman, which amuses me. However time is many ideas. There is still passage of time due to change in spatial arrangement of the contents giving a sequence of earlier and later. Without the absolute foundation there is nothing concretely real to generate the data for the higher level appearance.I do not believe that the magic of incompleteness and metaphysical realms are -scientific- explanations for the generation of the appearance of reality.

Yes I think evolutionary ideas are useful in physics.Your essay is certainly clearly written and accessible. It is good that you start with thinking about the definition of reality. Many essays have just assumed that the reader has the same idea of reality and do not even consider what else it might be.I do like that you are considering perception, as that overlaps with what I am thinking about. I find the discussion of the evolution of the universe less appealing so will have to work harder there.I will try to leave some constructive feedback on your thread.

I have decided that if I want other people to read my entry I should read and have some interest in theirs. There is a great diversity. Many are largely inaccessible to me. I am used to reading scientific articles as it is something I enjoy dong. Technical language (so long as it is not overdone) and formal impersonal presentation does not bother me. The hardest thing for me is mathematics. The best essays in my opinion are those which have avoided over use of technical language and mathematics and complex expression but have explained the ideas clearly and in an easily accessible and enjoyable way.

I do not think the essays are being marked according to the criteria at present as some very demanding papers are at the top of the list.What I tend to do is see what I can decipher and make the most of it unless it really captures my attention. In which case I will want to find out more. Papers that do not make me intrigued or eager to read on, but just throw up too much technical information, are disqualified from my further consideration. Perhaps the essays will sort themselves out towards the end of community voting . I will be very disappointed if the majority of the top essays turn out to be the ones inaccessible to non specialists.

Hi Constantinos,

Welcome.

I think I am going to have to say it depends. That is because we can not know what an electron -is- in foundational reality, we can only imagine what it might be from our observations within space-time, on the other side of the reality interface. Also the way I visualise a particle will be different from how a quantum physicist would describe it.

There are two different facets to reality what is and its appearance. In between the two is potential data. As I have been saying it is only at a reality interface that the unique data that forms image reality is collected. So the image reality of the electron, the appearance that gives us awareness or experience of it, comes into being at detection. So perhaps the unseen electron in foundational reality should be called by another name pre-electron perhaps.

I do think we need realism. It is something that can both effect and be effected by a medium. It has mass so is something with an object universal trajectory that resists perturbation, but that can be perturbed. It behaves in a certain way and, as you say, when it is detected it is called an electron. Whether the electron that is detected is the electron that was transmitted is another question. It is the energy of the electron that causes a change in the detector so it clicks or records a hit. At what point in time does it become an electron? Is it when the researcher sees his results? when the detector clicks? when the energy change in the detector occurs? or when something is released into the double slit apparatus? That is both a philosophical question and an important question of linguistic definition.

Constantinos I am sorry if that sounds like a very woolly reply. We do not yet have separation of the identity of something in underlying foundational level reality and its counterpart in higher level space-time experienced reality. I have been trying to talk about the medium but getting a little in knots. It may be because i am tired from reading so many essays. A field experienced in space-time reality is not the same thing as a disturbance of a medium in foundational reality, though the two are related. One is the space-time experience the other is what must be to give the experience. I think the double slit already is evidence of a medium, though any further corroborating experiment would be helpful.

Madam,

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics - discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations - and neither philosophy nor meta-physics. You must recognize that observer has an important role in quantum physics and discussion about it is not philosophy alone.

We are only pointing to the blurring of the diving lines between education, knowledge and science. You can try to educate somebody. But you cannot make him learn. The purpose of education is to educate - receiving/imparting (and as a consequence also receiving) information that can be stored in the memory and retrieved as and when necessary to initiate the required mechanism for getting the desired outcome. Thus, it is related to the potential for using information efficiently and has nothing to do with knowledge or science per se (an Engineer and a mechanic can perform the same task with equal efficiency), though we use science as a tool for imparting education. Unfortunately, the present education system has degenerated to memorization and reproduction of certain facts in an expected manner and the potential for the same has been linked to knowledge.

Knowledge is related to unification of the various sensory impulses to create a stable memory. None of the fundamental forces of Nature in isolation is useful for creation. Only collectively they can create stable systems. Similarly, knowledge, which unifies the different perceptions, is stable. Science is related to the opposite process of individuation - of processing or analysis of individual sensory impulses with the help of memory. Processing here is nothing but measurement, which in turn is comparison between similars. Individual sensory perceptions are not knowledge, but evolution of knowledge in limited directions, which has the potential to change the nature of the world around us in desired directions (sometimes in disastrous directions). The purpose of our writing this is to focus the discussion on the failure of theoretical scientists to lead the experimental scientists. As we can see, without theoretical guidance, the experimental scientists are creating Frankenstein's Monsters, which will gobble us all.

You have raised an important question relating to time. You say: "Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it". This because of two reasons: reductionism and lack of an unambiguous and precise definition of time. Regarding the first point, we will quote an anecdote. Six blind persons went to "see" an elephant. They touched one of its limbs each and described the elephant based on their perception. According to reductionism, each description is scientifically proved. But even if you combine all their statements, one who has not seen an elephant can never have a complete picture of the animal. On the other hand, one who has seen the animal can easily appreciate the correctness of the statements. Something similar happens in the case of time. We do not consider all aspects of time, because we have not defined time unambiguously and precisely. Do it and see for yourself - all the anomalies vanish. We have done that and the results can be seen in our essay and various other posts by us under different threads here - specifically those of Mr. Biermans and Mr. Castel.

Regards,

basudeba.

P.S. We do not mix academic and personal communication, as it silently distracts. As we can see, you have a charming personality. Hence your response is natural. Kindly excuse us if our words appeared harsh. Our email id is: mbasudeba@gmail.com

What is meant by reality? when does something become real? and if it is already real before that how should we discuss and model it? These are very important questions that I have touched on in my essay.

It is the logic of the under 2s that something that can not be seen is no longer real. Even a dog can work out that the bone under a box is still there. With the problem solving intelligence of a 5 to 7 year old. So yes we do need a return to realism. I am glad to have read a number of other essays asking for the same.

Seeing the magic trick does not make the magic real because reality is more than appearance alone.

Georgina,

Some parallels come to mind between your view and mine:

Whereas you speak of Objective Reality and Image Reality, I argue that before energy is 'manifested' there is an 'accumulation of energy' which cannot be directly observed (since it is below the threshold of the 'observable'). Not that what is 'unobservable' does not exist. Simply that we cannot directly observe it. This we recognize in all other experiences of the world. So why would physicists have a problem with that.

Whereas you speak of a 'medium' filling space, I argue in my essay that the 'prime physis quantity eta' fills space. Planck's constant h is such a quantity. I argue that the wavefunction is also such quantity! We both agree that something has to fill physical space. Though we can think of an abstract mathematical space which is 'empty', we can't conceive of an empty physical space. Since that flies in the face of what 'physical' means. Physical is what has substance and so also existence. Substance takes space and existence has presence. And what has presence is what happens Now! So I believe we also agree on our sense that time is Now. And any other understanding of time is an abstraction constructed by humans. Just as empty space is a human abstraction.

I believe that Thermodynamics makes our claims valid! In my essay ("A World Without Quanta?") I show that both the Fundamental Thermodynamics Relationship, as well as The Second Law of Thermodynamics are about time. These validate my claim that time in nature is a 'duration', t-s, and not 'instantiation', t=s. This claim gives validity to the assertion that before 'manifestation' there is 'accumulation' of energy. Furthermore, the 'internal energy' that Thermodynamics speaks of can be thought as just this unmanifested energy. So there is plenty in what is already known in physics to corroborate our claims.

One troubling thought: If as we claim physical time is 'duration' and not 'instantiation', than that raises serious concerns about the use of time in GR where 'events' are just points in the spacetime continuum. GR may not be supported by Thermodynamics! And the Cosmology that GR gives rise, deeply Thermodynamical, may just be false! Just a thought! I'll let others make such determinations.

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos ,

thank you for going over your veiw. We share the requirement for realism. I agree that we can not know what fills foundational reality but it can not be empty. It can be given any kind of name but that does not alter what it -is-, it is just a chosen name. Like a personal name is not the whole person. Nor is any mathematical description the something itself.

Since replying to your post I have been thinking more on what an election is.

Reality is not a singular concept.(addressed in my essay) nor is time ( I have listed the different kinds of time on fqxi blogs and elsewhere.)and nor is electron or any other particle. Perhaps it would be best to label the different ideas related to an electron alphabetically.

a. electron in an atomic structure.

b. free electron

c. electron at detector causing detectable change

d. transmission of electron information from detector (eg click representing electron) to human sensory system.

e. Sensory input re "electron" transmitted to brain for processing and giving conscious awareness.

f. Conscious awareness of an event identified with an electron .

g. mathematical, literal or artistic visual representation of an electron.

It has to be admitted that these are not identical somethings although they all bear the same name electron. It is like the electron is metamorphosing along a path from foundational reality up to our conscious higher level awareness of reality. If the alphabetic letter was included as a prefix to the word electron it would clarify exactly where in the range of realities this particular electron under consideration is.

Space-time is only the appearance of reality. It is an illusion generated from received information, not what exists and is happening at objective uni-temporal Now. In foundational reality change or energy is a purely spatial phenomenon which gives rise to emergent passage of time. At the foundational level it is change in sequence of configuration giving earlier and later that exists. There is no time dimension.

The physics occurring at the sub atomic scale in foundational reality can not be directly used for the space-time image. They are just not the same thing. Though of course they are related as one is the temporally distorted image of the other.The passage of time, which includes duration, is not the same as time along the time dimension which is a geometric dimension.There is no passage of time within space-time alone. It is a static block of existence.

Prior to highly complicated mathematics, there needs to be clear definition of what -exactly- is being considered. The precise terms can then be used. Rather than using unclear general terms and assumptions that everything with the same name is the same, and that everyone is considering the same thing when a particular name is used.