Real-Time Physics

Akinbo, All,

Galilaean invariance /Newtonian relativity is about substantial objects existing in absolute space. I have seen that described as infinitely many universal sized reference frames. There is also a universal or absolute time , that is what I call uni-temporal(the same time everywhere) passage of time . Whereas Einstein's relativity is dealing with manifestations produced from data carried by light. The emergent reality. That's why the speed of light becomes important. Each inertial frame has its own time as that is what is seen. An observer looking at the clock in another's frame will see it show a different time from his own clock.

Both kinds of relativity fit within the explanatory framework I have set out because one is dealing with the substantial Object reality and the other the insubstantial Image reality. Both are necessary in a complete description of the entirety of reality. It is not that only one is correct and the other is false. Confusing the two types of reality causes all kinds of confusions, paradoxes and suspicions of conspiracy too it seems.

Georgina,

Did you read the essay by Phipps? He made aware of a historical fact: The current "Maxwell equation" slightly deviate from original ones by Hertz because they consider a "correction" that was kept for necessary because Michelson (please notice that Michelson, not Morley invented the experiment and performed it already in Potsdam) didn't confirm the existence of a light-carrying aether. Lorentz tried defending the aether hypothesis by means of suggesting length contraction, and this led to Einstein's Special Relativity (SR). There are two main alternatives to SR:

- Following Lorentz but not Einstein, as did e.g. Selleri and Van Flandern

- Denying length contraction and Lorentz transformation

If Phipps is correct then proponents of the latter only need abandoning the mere guess that empty space behaves like a medium. Pentcho is arguing for Newton's idea that particles of light behave like bullets which have mass and are more or less accelerated. Consider this view at odds with the measured data, I tried to explain to Tim Maudlin my reasoning: Newton imagined space like a body. Any body even an empty sheet of paper is something with boundaries one can refer to. Leibniz considered space as a (perhaps infinite) amount of mutual relations. This does not imply a naturally preferred point to refer to; it is more appealing to me. I wonder if Tim will be in position to object.

In this sense, I consider me a relativist but not a Relativist.

To me, objective reality is something conjectured to be logically and experimentally self-consistent in the sense that there is only one reality. Although my conjecture may differ from the attribution of others, we will nonetheless agree on that there is only one objective reality. Hopefully this does not sound agnostic. I am confident being more often correct than wrong.

Eckard

Eckard, I had not read it but have now.

I'm happy for substantial objects that are rigid to be invariable with translation at constant speed and for the parts of an image of the same object to be co variant as an observer moves such that different sensory data is input from which the observed output manifestation of the object will be formed. They are not incompatible if it is accepted that what is seen is not the substantial object itself but a representation fabricated from sensory data. At everyday speeds of constant motion neither rigid objects nor their images are distorted and so both kinds of relativity give similar results.

Re a singular objective reality:I think Johnathan Dickau's example of measuring coastlines gives a good indication that there is not necessarily one objective reality. (Objective reality could be called multi or inter subjective reality.) A result can be agreed by many observers or many by repeats of an experiment yet the result is only true in the context of the experimental protocol used. Repetition does not make it the absolute truth, that disallows other true but seemingly contradictory outcomes. The measurement of the coastline depends upon the scale used to carry out the measurement. The smaller the scale the longer the coast line is found to be. The Object reality IE. what the substantial object (being considered) itself is (without measurement), is the absolute truth and source of all of the differing but valid objective measurements.

Georgina, Eckard et al...

Georgina, when you say, "Galilean invariance /Newtonian relativity is about substantial objects existing in absolute space... etc", it seems to me confusing to say 'absolute space and uni-temporal time' and at the same time 'infinitely many universal sized reference frames'. In the Newtonian picture there is only one Absolute space and time, not many but there are other reference frames within that Absolute reference frame. For illustration, there can be people walking at different paces in different directions inside a ship like the Titanic, oblivious of the speed that ship is travelling. However, this is a local frame and would appear differently in a higher order reference frame of the Earth. Which in turn would appear differently from the Solar system observation frame, which in turn would be different from the Galactic, etc till the highest order in the hierarchy the Absolute frame is reached. Which is why, when one says he is moving at a particular speed, it is necessary to say with respect to what.

re: Galilean invariance /Newtonian relativity is about substantial objects VS Einstein's relativity is dealing with manifestations produced from data carried by light.

One should be careful here not to confuse an objective reality with an illusion. If I get you correctly, in your preferred terminology, Object reality should not be confused with Image reality.

I seem however to disagree with your statement that, "Both are necessary in a complete description of the entirety of reality. It is not that only one is correct and the other is false. Confusing the two types of reality causes all kinds of confusions, paradoxes and suspicions of conspiracy too it seems."

Physics should be described by Objective reality not by illusion, while seeking to explain the source of the illusion using objective physics only. It is when trying to do physics with illusion or image reality that paradoxes surface. To illustrate, it is an illusion/ image reality that we on Earth are stationary and not moving in space, but rather other spatial objects like the Sun and Moon are doing the moving. It is however an objective reality that we are actually in a spacecraft cruising at an unbelievable 30,000m/s about the Sun. It is the duty of physics to explain how the illusion of being motionless is conveyed or came to be, when in actual fact we are cruising at high speed. To therefore say, "It is not that only one is correct and the other is false", will seem wrong in that sense. We cannot be motionless and moving at the same time. One is correct, the other is false but its falsity needs to be explained with physical principles, just the way Galileo and Newton have done for us.

Eckard,

That essay by Phipps is the work of an old master, very good at his game. We need more of such people in physics. I see he has other papers in the Galilean relativity journal, but available only by subscription. There is a similar essay by Neal Graneau but not comparable to that of the 90 year old master IMO.

Eckard, I know your preferred model but you have done a very good job exposing clearly the issues in contention.

Now,

IF length contraction and Lorentz transformation is denied, and

IF Phipps is correct

You suggest abandoning the idea that empty space behaves like a medium, but

IF empty space behaves like a medium

Is it impossible that there is invisible matter that can act like a light carrying medium and be gravitationally bound to and accompany the earth in its celestial motion? Is there evidence that this type of matter exists abundantly? From Newtonian principles, orbiting bodies obey F = GMm/r2 = mv2/r

So, GM/r = v2. It follows that at a given radius, r knowing v, we can calculate M. If we do this calculation from a high value of v at an orbital distance, r, and obtain a high M, but looking around with telescope calculate the masses of all the dust particles, asteroids, planets, luminous matter and add all this up and get less than 10% of the required M, what next? If we are not to throw away the Newtonian principles that have taken us to the moon and back, and that have been guiding our satellites in orbit, then we must accept/ consider the idea that not all the matter present is in visible form thus preserving the Newtonian relationship of v to r. Come to think of it, why must all matter be visible and made of atoms? Are we the manufacturers of matter? So, going by the Sun's high galactic orbital velocity, v at a radius, r from the centre of the the Milky Way, and the observed amount of luminous matter internal to that radius, it seems that the three IF's above can still be satisfied without "abandoning the mere guess that empty space behaves like a medium", if we consider the possibility that this invisible matter was an active but unseen participant in the experiments of Michelson in Potsdam and other subsequent ones. Which participation made it impossible for light velocity to be influenced at earth surface by earth motion during the experiments, while for a fact earth motion affects light velocity of more distant sources traversing space and matter that is not gravitationally bound to earth surface.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo, All,

I merely meant that, when thinking about Galilean invariance/Newtonian relativity it is the same time everywhere, with one absolute Object universal passage of time. Unlike space-time emergent reality where distance and time are correlated so distant things are further back in time etc. (It is not the same time everywhere within the space time continuum.) The relative velocity of things, where there is absolute passage of time, has no effect on the passage of time. Not so with space-time close to the speed of light, because there we are dealing with the images observed not substantial objects. That does not make the Einsteinian version invalid, as it represents what would be seen from processing of the real sensory data present in the environment.

There are very many maybe an infinite number of potential reference frames but just one absolute space-I don't think that's confusing. Just think of how many ways you could orient 3 orthogonal dimensions in absolute space.The reference frames are imaginary not actually in the space and there is no need to specify a size limit for them so they can be as big as the universe -no problem

Yes Object reality should not be confused with Image reality.The explanatory framework has two facets of reality one foundational level reality and one emergent level. The emergent reality is the output from the processing of sensory data whether received directly or amalgamated from data collected by devices of some kind. Image reality is usually not an illusion it is what we see and that is what the majority of people regard as real. An illusion is perception of a false reality such as when a magician uses a carefully positioned mirror to make an elephant in the room disappear. It is clear to the audience that the elephant has vanished although it is actually still in the room. Image reality can be objective if many people agree that they see the same result. That does not make it Object reality. Object reality is the foundational reality , the source of the data from which the observations are constructed.

Sitting writing this I am not experiencing moving at high speed, that is my experienced or Image reality. It is not a false experience and I would say that relativity explains why that experience occurs. It is objectively real as it would be experienced that way by everyone. We can be both motionless and moving at the same time. Relative to the cat sitting next to me on the couch I am not moving at high speed, I am near stationary with fingers typing, but relative to the sun I am moving at high speed. Both are valid it is not that one is correct and the other therefore an illusion. As you mentioned yourself there are other reference frames at greater scales so even the velocity around the sun can not be said to be exclusively valid. That's relativity.

It is also fine to have substantial objects doing things in uni-temporal absolute space simultaneously with observation of images of those objects formed within an output emergent space-time reality. They can co exist without contradiction as they are different facets of reality, not one true and one false description.

"At the moment, it is tough to distinguish the laws of nature from the universe's initial conditions." It is not at all difficult. The information content of the former, is infinitesimal, compared to the latter. And therein lies the reason why the former does not exhibit an "arrow of time", while the latter does.

Robert H McEachern,

Could you please give your reading of "the laws of nature"? What I am looking to know is if you understand it to refer to the laws of nature or to the laws of theoretical physics?

James Putnam

It can refer to either. I think the distinction you are making is sometimes referred to as the distinction between a territory, and a map of that territory. I personally prefer to describe the distinction as "what actually exists, in nature", and the "scientific description of what exists, in nature". The laws of theoretical physics, are descriptions of the laws of nature. They are not the same as nature itself (as described in my 2012 FQXI essay) although they are usually assumed to be the same. But the descriptions have some properties, that are not properties of nature itself. I think many of the weird "interpretations" in modern physics, result from confusing a property that is unique to the description, for a property of nature itself. The arrow of time problem, is a good example of this.

So your view:

"The information content of the former, is infinitesimal, compared to the latter."

Means: The information content of "what actually exists, in nature", is infinitesimal, compared to "the universe's initial conditions."

James Putnam

It means that the information content of the laws, as described mathematically, is infinitesimal, compared to the initial conditions.

This is related to the issue of determinism and free-will:

See my Aug. 19, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT comment, under Dan J. Bruiger's 2012 essay.

I understand the difference. I wanted to know which way you meant it. The descriptive phrase "the information content of the laws, as described mathematically" means to me "the laws of theoretical physics". That is all there was to this.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

Read "Bringing Simultaneity Back to Life"; Apeiron 19 (2012)1, 71-83.

Americans seem to need stressing the role of the Cleveland/Morley repetition of Michelson's experiment. Nigerians like you might be more sovereign. Congratulation.

What about your dark matter idea, I cannot see how it could add a new aspect to the old discussion of dragged invisible aether.

I asked Pentcho in vain for experimentally found limits to the possible mass of a photon.

"Gravitational lensing" is the standard interpretation of what has been observed near to celestial objects. These tend also to be surrounded by matter with n larger than 1. To my knowledge, this alternative explanation was not thoroughly refuted. So I am open for a variety of ideas.

Leibniz relativity (not Einstein's Relativity) seems to be the simplest one.

Georgina,

I fear, your intention to mediate is not helpful. What an observer can measure is not length contraction regardless of whether distance increases or decreases but Doppler's effect, i.e., red shift or blue shift depending on the sign of velocity, not on its square. Lorentz contraction was introduced as to interpret away a mistaken experimental result. It is clearly wrong because it is mathematically and to some extent experimentally correct on a wrong basis.

Regards,

Eckard

Georgina, Eckard et al

Thanks Eckard,

I just read the paper you mentioned. On Einstein's Gedanken experiments, notably

the famous one involving two lightning strikes at the ends of a moving train, there is need to clarify and examine properly as two outcomes are possible.

If the lightening strikes occur at the same time as the train starts to move this is what happens...

For the case where the lightening is occurring in the train station or on the windshield, the observer will see the lightening in front first before the one at the rear of the train.

For the case, where the lightening is occurring in the train itself and is propagated through the medium in the train, both front and rear lightening strikes will be seen simultaneously. According to Galileo, the lightening strikes, the observer and the train are all in one ship (Galileo's ship).

For the case, where there is no medium of light propagation travelling with the train, and the medium is independent of the train's motion, again the lightening strike in front will be seen by the observer before the one at the rear.

All these although Gedanken experimenten are experimentally observed from Pulsar timing measurements which are like timed lightening strikes outside the train. Putting a pulsatile source of light can mimic Pulsars/ timed lightening strikes within the train.

Concerning, "What about your dark matter idea, I cannot see how it could add a new aspect to the old discussion of dragged invisible aether", there is a major difference. While invisible aether is dragged along with the moving earth by the Fresnel drag effect which epends on the aether's refractive index, dark matter like all matter in the Earth's vicinity is gravitationally bound and accompanies the earth at its full velocity irrespective of its refrsctive index. Indeed one of the reasons dragged aether cannot work is that to account for the experimental findings, it has to be fully dragged and not partially dragged. The required refractive index for full dragging is impossible.

Georgina,

Your points are well noted. There are two types of Relativity in contention, Galilean relativity and Special relativity. Are you introducing a third? Or hoping to merge the two into One relativity despite there incompatibility? I think better to stick the one that is devoid of paradox and compatible with all experimental findings, which in my opinion I think is Galilean.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hi Akimbo, All,

If one is dealing with what is happening in space with an absolute passage of time then Galilean/ Newtonian relativity is applicable. That's what is going on with the object sources of sensory data. If one is dealing with the output of data processing that is observed, a space-time output, then special or general relativity is appropriate.Special relativity producing significantly different result at close to light speeds as Image distortion occurs. The paradoxes are not a problem if it is accepted that one is dealing with output Image reality and not the reality of the underlying substantial objects. In my opinion the different kinds of relativity are not incompatible but are applicable in different domains, the different facets of reality. The outcome of the analysis of many experiments designed to detect aether is that it can not be detected.If there is some common mistake affecting the outcome of all of those very many different experiments that would be something significant.

Personally I think there needs to be a ubiquitous medium to account for Newton's first Law. Any absolute change of trajectory of an object requires energy input. (Even seemingly stationary objects have absolute motion.) That energy being the amount necessary to overcome the resistance of the ubiquitous medium to the altered motion of the object. The greater the acceleration the more medium must be shifted and so there is greater inertia. I consider it likely that inertia is the relationship between a body and its environment, even when in deep space, not a property, energy content, of a body alone.

Georgina,

In Object reality, my name is Akinbo. In Image reality, it seems to be Akimbo :)

Your post makes a lot of sense to me, like many of your other posts in spite of being painted in your unique colours of Object vs Image reality which seems not to be the conventional way of presenting the picture.

"The outcome of the analysis of many experiments designed to detect aether is that it can not be detected.If there is some common mistake affecting the outcome of all of those very many different experiments that would be something significant."

I wish to be remembered for suggesting that that common mistake is the presence of dark matter, which was an unknown in the experiments of the era (1881 -1919).

"Personally I think there needs to be a ubiquitous medium to account for Newton's first Law."

I think so too. The straight line of Newton's first law must be due to the property of the ubiquitous medium. But I don't think I agree that the medium can be shifted and resist its shifting. The importance of Newton's Third law is that what shifts and what resists shifting must both have mass. For example, a bird can fly in air by flapping its wings, it shifts the air which reacts in turn with an opposite force to cause an uplift. However, in space, no amount of flapping will make the bird to fly, because space has no mass to implement Newton's third law.

The other crazy idea I wish to be known for is that in moving, it is the distance that changes and not the object itself. I know it is crazy, but is it impossible? For example, consider yourself 5 metres away from a wall, if 2 metres were to disappear, you would be 3 metres away from the wall without actually leaving where you are and yet one can say you have moved, but have you? That is, did you actually move or it was the distance that shortened?

In philosophy (of the Zeno variety -the Dichotomy and Arrow paradoxes), an object cannot move.

In mathematics, an object can move using Calculus, although what the infinitessmal, dx is, is not logically and reasonably clear.

Physics itself currently has no explanation for motion apart from the mathematical. The currently accepted model of motion in physics is that distance/ space has no role to play in motion. But suppose it does? Supposing distance can shorten in the direction of motion as a result of expressed free-will (whatever that is) or as the outcome of force (also whatever that is)?

Can physics marry the seemingly discordant positions of philosophy and mathematics as regards motion? This is an area I have tried to make sense of, but still looking crazy!

Thanks for the conversation. I think we have about said enough or have we?

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hi Akinbo, (sorry for misspelling your name previously) RE: MY NAME IS AKINBO

Use of Image and Object reality categorization may not yet be convention but I think it is very useful and would like it to be adopted by others who can appreciate the usefulness.

Sorry but your name is not Akinbo in Object reality (Even if you have "my name is Akinbo" tattooed on your body, it is just ink without meaning in that realm without mind to process the letter code. ) In Object reality there is a substantial body of flesh and bone and blood (assuming you are a real person). When light is reflected from the surface of that body or its clothing it carries sensory data that can be received by an observer who forms a mental image of that body (an Image reality). That image may be associated in his/her mind with the sound Akinbo and /or the written code Akimbo IF he/she has learned your name and thus has those neural connection. There may be pressure waves in the air, that when received by an observer is processed by his/her sensory system and interpreted as the (Image reality) sound 'Akinbo' but unless the observer has the neural connection linking the sound with the image of the body or face it is not associated as your name.

However, many people can agree that your name is Akinbo and so it is an objective reality which is nothing more than a multi-subjective or inter-subjective reality. There are many people in the world who do not know you and your associated name and thus for them it is not a known objective reality. Object reality exists whether it is perceived or not so it doesn't matter if people don't know you , your body does not cease to exist but they have no image reality, or memory of you that can be recalled as an image reality. Just as the moon object does not disappear when not looked at. Though the Image reality produced from sensory data is not formed and so the Image, whereby the moon is recognized as there, does not exist.

Hi Akinbo, RE: INERTIA and MOTION

Re. inertia. Inertia increases when a body undergoes acceleration. The object appears to get more massive.Question is, is it the mass of the body increasing or is it the interaction with the environment resisting the change? I am suggesting that that extra mass does not actually belong to the accelerated mass though it 'feels as though it does. This may be 'heresy' as it calls into question mass energy equivalence.

Re. distance shortening without the object moving, isn't that what happens with an escalator, lift (elevator) or moving walkway or as a passenger in a car? Back to relativity: relative to the vehicle the person can be stationary but relative to the external environment in motion. So both stationary and in motion simultaneously.

What dx actually means For physicists not mathematicians (see note at bottom of page) Ignore this if you were just expressing philosophical exasperation and are not actually questioning what it means physically /mathematically.

Not sure quite what you mean about space not being involved in motion. When you talk about fee will altering space or distance it makes me think of how an unfamiliar journey seems much longer than a familiar one. Also very often an outbound journey seems to take longer than the return. Though the absolute distance (Object reality) is unchanged, the experienced reality (Image reality) is at odds with that fact. Perhaps because more attention is required on a new journey while learning significant landmarks, or there is more excitement and so more attention to what is going on, compared to a familiar journey or a return trip home.

Akinbo

I should not really have said "in that realm without mind" as it is not clear precisely what I mean. In that Object reality there are brains which have brain activity that may well be decoding pressure wave or letter code information. The point is that the output which becomes knowledge is not Object reality but Image reality. That is another level of reality as it is an emergent product not an intrinsic component of the external environment.

Hi Eckard,

I take your point that Lorentz contraction in the M.M. experiment allows the possibility of an aether while at the same time giving an explanation of why it is impossible to detect with that apparatus.It seems that there have been numerous other experiment of different designs and greater sensitivity that have also failed to detect it. I don't understand the amount of attention given by various people to that one particular rather inaccurate experiment.

Liebniz was an amazingly productive researcher and thinker. I hadn't been aware of his very many accomplishments. Space consisting of infinite mutual relations sounds good and more realistic than Newton's reference frames with boundaries that have to be imposed on space. Both allow us to think about space without saying anything about whether it is substantial or not. A bit like designating flux as a field without addressing: flux in what? Personally I find it difficult to play with magnets and maintain believe in forces of disembodied flux, though the field description is useful.

Georgina,

One area you can use your Object reality vs Image reality patented technology concerns the Pioneer Anomaly. If you have followed the latest discussion on the Faster than light forum, you would see arguments suggesting that the speed of light varies with height. That is light speed reduces as it falls (i.e. towards the tower floor) and therefore conversely light speed increases as it rises. What will be the implication for two-way signals sent from base station to a spacecraft leaving Earth and returned by a transponder on board the craft?

The Pioneer space craft can no longer be seen.

If we don't use Object/Image reality and don't recognize that light speed can increase, the signals keep returning to base earlier than expected and we conclude that it is not receding from Earth fast enough either because an attraction force is hindering its escape or there is thermal problem in the engine aircraft (the latest suggested reason for the anomaly).

I post this because this is one area "your technology' comes useful.

In saying, "I don't understand the amount of attention given by various people to that one particular rather inaccurate experiment.", I think you may be underestimating the fundamental significance of that experiment. It is almost the 'numero uno' and many experts still don't understand its significance. I found this book a treasure when my interest started years ago (Relativity for the layman J A Coleman). I still cherish this simple book.

Concerning, what you said to Eckard, in many respects Newton is the Arch-Priest that Space is substance. You can see some of his quotes in my 2013 essay.

Regards,

Akinbo