Blogger William Orem wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 14:10 GMT
A gentle plea: will all science journalists please cease and desist from referring to the Higgs boson as “the God particle”? Nothing that emerges from a particle accelerator is going to be “the God” anything, and using the term loosely only sells copy at the expense of
confusing the public as to what awesome places like CERN actually do.
There. Think that will work?
Not a chance, I know . . . especially now that we are closing in on the confirming the existence of said
particle, and from independent research teams.
Twin groups working at the LHC have found “data spikes” near the expected range (that’s somewhere between 114 and 185 GeV at the outside, for those in the know). Computing error, twice? Maybe; it could be an “error in the model background” itself. But that most hyperbolically named particle is going to be
everywhere in the news, if and when these experiments bear mass-producing
fruit. Speaking of which, there’s a funny moment in Steven Weinberg’s “Dreams of a Final Theory” (which I know you appreciate, Tom Ray; thanks, by the way, for your many kind comments on this blog) in which he relates his experience in trying to get Congress to fund the SSC. At one point a Representative from Illinois (sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) asks of the Supercollider, “ . . . will this make us find God?” . . . because, “If this machine does that, I am going to come around and support it.” Weinberg dryly quips, “I had enough sense to stay out of this exchange.”
Weinberg himself is almost laconic about the Higgs, since—valid enough point, though it takes a theoretical physicist to think this way—it is the easiest solution to the Standard Model, making a “find” more on the order of expected confirmation than actual discovery.
Quote: “Because the Higgs boson is really required by the simplest version of the theory that unifies the weak and electromagnetic forces, it’s very likely to be discovered.
The theory has other versions which would lead to the discovery of other kinds of particles, the so-called technicolor particles.
“We have a fair degree of certainty that one or the other of those, and very likely the Higgs boson, will be discovered. In fact, it’s so likely that we already anticipate it, so it probably won’t get us anything new. What we really need is something that we don’t anticipate.”
At the same time, there’s no need to *downplay* the Higgs—as I have also seen some do who, like me, cringe at its metaphysically overstated moniker. The Higgs, if it indeed exists, is indeed a big deal. The issue of ruling Asgard aside, this is the particle that confers mass on . . . well, on everything that has mass. Without the Higgs, one assumes, the cosmos would be a haze of radiant energy.
Which raises an interesting hypothetical issue. (A layman’s thoughts follow; QCD or GR folks, feel free to dive in.)
In a hypothetical universe devoid of the Higgs
field, all particles would have zero rest mass; the universe would be spacetime and energy. That’s odd enough to picture—14 billion light years with nothing massive in it, from neutrons to neutron stars. But something weirder seems to follow. It strikes me that, without the Higgs, there would be no perspective by which time is moving.
Special Relativity gets us there. One can’t posit an inertial reference frame “seated on a photon,” as no clock or yardstick can meaningfully be constructed, but play along for a moment (as that’s just the point). From a “photon’s frame of reference,” if you will, the entire universe is motionless in time. It’s all moving at speed C in the other direction, dilating the relative progression of its clock to nada.
Thanks to the Lorentz Contraction, from the photon’s perspective the universe also has zero extension in the direction of motion. (Which is the only direction that has meaning to a photon, so to speak; whether it exists in a “2-d universe” or not can be discussed.) Wherever, from our perspective, the photon is headed—from its own perspective, it’s already there, and has “always” been there, because there was no distance to cover. Let’s say the universe is finite but unbounded, but you have to get to 100 billion parsecs to start to make out the grand curvature. Doesn’t make any difference; that photon has “already” completed its journey, all the way around to its starting place. Indeed, in the frozen timeless instant, there was no journey to complete, because the Lorentz pulled that entire unbounded cosmos, no matter its volume, down to a point.
 |
If everything in the universe moves at C, no inertial state exists even in principle that “experiences” either the flow of time or the extension of space. In principle it would still exist, we might say—imagining the universe, perhaps, as a giant empty box through which massless particles are “really” moving at finite speeds. But there is no “really” view on spacetime; only locally inertial frames and spacetime coincidences. Newton’s model of time, “passing equably without relation to anything external,” is incorrect. And if there are no reference frames in which time moves—anywhere—surely it is pedantic to say that time “really” is running.
Zero time factor; zero spatial expansion; the whole universe a point of infinite energy, from every possible frame. That certainly seems equivalent to “singularity.” Without at least one sub-C particle, it isn’t clear (to me, anyway) what meaning can be attached to the notion of spacetime expansion.
Higgs Boson—Author of Time?
Higgs Boson—Particle That Caused the Bang? Maybe we do need a more impressive moniker, after all.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Hi William,
I have been following the comments on Philip Gibbs' viXra log and on Lubos Motl's blog about recent Higgs searches. If I am interpreting Philip's Unofficial LHC Higgs Combo plot properly, it looks like Higgs-like signals may be strongest between 115-120 GeV (~117 GeV), and between 135-150 GeV (~142 GeV). Philip thinks that this data may prefer a non-minimal Higgs sector. If so, then we don't need to talk about THE 'God particle' because more than a single Higgs-like particle may exist.
There are a couple of strange parts of Philip's plot. There is a huge deficit of signal between 370-400 GeV (~385 GeV). It is simple enough to realize that this could be related to the top quark: 2 x 173 GeV = 346 GeV, but the simulations *SHOULD* have taken those effects into account. This seems to imply new physics. Tony Smith has a top-top-bar condensate model yielding Higgs/ Goldstone properties that might yield these effects. And I was wondering if a SUSY Heavy Higgs and SUSY Pseudoscalar Higgs might exist in the same mass range such that negative interference arises from their conflicting parity properties.
And another 'signal' seems to exist above 530 GeV, which is close to the mass of three top quarks (but would have the wrong spin properties for a 'Higgs') AND close to the combined mass of a SUSY Light Higgs @ ~142 GeV plus a SUSY Heavy Higgs @ ~385 GeV. Is it some sort of 'Higgs-ball', or is this the SUSY Charged Higgs?
In some of my own wild models, I have been paying close attention to the modulus-8 arithmatic property of the Normed Divisor Algebras (1-D Real, 2-D Complex, 4-D Quaternion, 8-D Octonion, and start over again), and tentatively speculate that this property may impose a modulus-2 arithmatic property on the intrinsic spin of fundamental particles. If so, then the Higgs (Spin-0) and Graviton (mod-2 of Spin-2 is also Spin-0) may be more closely related than we realize. Of course, this also requires massive gravitons, but I have been speculating on 'WIMP-Gravity' with massive gravitons for years.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear William,
The other day, I said "If I am interpreting Philip's Unofficial LHC Higgs Combo plot properly, it looks like Higgs-like signals may be strongest between 115-120 GeV (~117 GeV), and between 135-150 GeV (~142 GeV)."
Now Philip has a new viXra log asking "Has the LHC seen the Higgs Boson at
144 GeV?" Lubos made a funny, and called it a 144 GeV 'Gibbs hogon' rather than a 'Higgs boson'.
Philosopher-Physicists with their own theories want to say that the Higgs boson doesn't exist. I think it would be fun if the Higgs multiplet is non-minimal and leads to new physics (like the SUSY Higgs spectrum with Light, Heavy, Pseudoscalar and Charged Higgs bosons).
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT
A Higgs field is that which gives mass. Without it, everything would be luminous; photons of energy flying about with nothing to do. But the Higgs concept is missing something. Positing a field that creates mass is only half the story. You have to think about the space between two masses. They say that everything is interconnected. This is true, but the idea has connotations of New Age hippies and LSD. The idea needs an overhaul suitable for physics.
Let's simplify it to a ball and stick picture. Anything with mass is the ball. Any kind of relationship between two masses is the stick. The stick is the invariance of the speed of light, it holds the kinetic energy between two masses, the stick is the pathway for the photon, from emission to observation; the stick is space-time. Opposite ends of the stick can have different clock rates or rates of time progression, call them t and t'; more simply, that's time dilation.
Using this kind of ball and stick idea, 4D space-time (which ignites superstitious wonder and ongoing episodes of Outer Limits) is simplified to a 3D network of balls and sticks. The speed of light is invariant for all observers because sticks define the speed limit of c, and sticks are willing to induce time dilation between its two ends, where the balls are placed. The balls are inertial/non inertial reference frames with mass in them. The ball can be a particle, planet or any massive object.
Balls and sticks are 3D objects with time dilation built into them. If there is time dilation along the stick, then the photon that travels along the stick will undergo a frequency shift. That frequency shift can be either a gravitational potential difference or a difference in velocity between two masses.
A Higgs field should look more like the ball and stick concept I described. The advantage is that space-time is part of the model.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Hi Jason,
"A Higgs field is that which gives mass. Without it, everything would be luminous; photons of energy flying about with nothing to do. ..."
Or perhaps without it we would have a new theory?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi James,
I know you've been ill at ease with science's understanding of mass for quite a while. I'm not very enthusiastic about finding a Higgs "particle". But the concept of something which allows mass to exist is unavoidable because mass exists. The ball and stick concept is the simplest approach. Relativity, time dilation, invariant c, all of those measurable properties can be attributed to the sticks. The sticks become the transmission medium of light, which is space-time itself.
In case you were wondering, yes, I have a plan to pull a shift photon out of this model as well as gravity field generation.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
Jason,
"...In case you were wondering, yes, I have a plan to pull a shift photon out of this model as well as gravity field generation."
Good for you.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 17:50 GMT
Thanks, William! You know that I always look forward to your stimulating blog articles -- I predict another landslide of responses.
Re Weinberg. I suppose that when one has written a multi-volume textbook on quantum field theory, one has a right to be a little jaded. Yet it has to be wearying to try and communicate with people who want you to sum up your life's work while they stand on one foot and recite the ten commandments. (I think Lederman was mostly responsible for the popularization of that "God particle" business -- it was a joke, folks, honest!)
Thanks for the link. I've not been following the story. I do agree with Weinberg that it's our capacity to be surprised (objects fall at the same rate in a gravity field -- really?) that motivates the best science.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Trying to understand why particles have mass in terms of still smaller massive particles doesn't look like a useful approach. Do physicists hope to find the anti-Higgs particle so that they can neutralize the Higgs field around massive objects? Is that going to free massive objects from their inertial field? Or annihilate them entirely?
I think the Higgs concept needs a redesign. Please disagree with me.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
Jason,
The Higgs is a boson, i.e., an energy exchange particle. It exists in the Higgs field in the way that photons, e.g., exist in the electromagnetic field. There's nothing particularly novel about the theoretical approach, which is quantum field theory; it's the energy required to create the exchange (to "see" the particle in order to provide evidence of the theory's prediction) that is challenging.
It's been a long time since I read it, but I think Lederman's book might answer your questions.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Garsh Tom,
If the true basis for effects keeps getting shoved off to 'fields', then the true basis for effects is unknown.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT
James,
And always will be unknown, and unknowable, to science. We can only asymptotically approach "true" causes using scientific method. Karl Popper named it "verisimilitude," meaning "truth-likeness," because any true statement must be framed by language (theory) which is independent of phenomena.
Claims to absolute knowledge of truth (even true causes, or perhaps especially true causes) must necessarily fall to philosophy or religion.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:27 GMT
Tom,
"Claims to absolute knowledge of truth (even true causes, or perhaps especially true causes) must necessarily fall to philosophy or religion."
Or, for the sake of scientific credibility, it is admitted that there is an original cause capable of producing all the universe without taking sides on the nature of that original cause. If you leave your statement as it is above, then you are subjecting theoretical physics to be pronounced as a subset of philosophy or religion.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT
Json,
"... I'm ok with fields in general. ..."
I can't tell from this statement whether or not you believe these 'fields' to have precipitated out of some 'primordial field'.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
No theorist I know claims absolute truth.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 21:17 GMT
Tom,
"No theorist I know claims absolute truth."
Of course many of them do. Atheistic, far-leftist scientists and members of religions expound all the time on knowledge about the "original cause". Theoretical physics is based upon a materialistic, unintelligent-type basis for the birth and evolution of the universe. It took sides when it started. If theoretical physics is about inventing causes for changes of velocity then it is not the foundational science of this universe.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
An example or two would help here.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 22:30 GMT
Tom,
I will assume your message was directed at mine:
"An example or two would help here."
I assume you do not mean examples of physical scientists taking positions on the nature of the cause of the universe.
An example with mass is that mass was chosen to have a nature not explainable from the empirical evidence upon which its existence was inferred.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 23:19 GMT
James,
You asked: "I can't tell from this statement whether or not you believe these 'fields' to have precipitated out of some 'primordial field'. "
I think the aether was incorrectly defined by Michelson Morley. All they proved was that the aether is not a particulate gas that the earth moves through. Nobody ever asked if the aether was a "dynamic interonnection field" like a network.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 23:35 GMT
Jason,
"I think the aether was incorrectly defined by Michelson Morley. All they proved was that the aether is not a particulate gas that the earth moves through."
Well you have me wondering? What does their experiment have to do with 'particulate'?
James
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 13:51 GMT
James,
Basically it just shows the earth is moving in its own frame and the Higgs would seem to be an effort to describe a deeper particulate structure.
What Jason would be describing is a foundational network, rather than foundational nodes/particles.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 15:19 GMT
James,
Actually, I meant examples of atheist leftist professors corrupting our youth with their dastardly idea of an "original cause."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
James,
Trying to detect movement through the aether and comparing the aether to sound waves or water waves is the same as calling the aether a particulate. Air is a particulate of O2 and N2 molecules. Water is a particulate of H2O. The aether was proved not to be a particulate. It has to be more like a network or an interconnective field. The interconnections fix the speed of light to c (vac), but allow the frequency and wavelength to change, resulting in redshift. Invariance of the speed of light is not a logical result of anything else. It is a first case mechanism and a hint at how the laws of physics are implemented.
By the way, I agree that "atheist leftist professors corrupting our youth"; they do so, not at gunpoint, but grade point. Furthermore, I've actually become irritated by the politicking of both political factions. As a direct result of their politicking, the USA's bond rating has been reduced to AA+. Congress and the president should be, metaphorically speaking, tarred, feathered and run out of town. Or better yet, pummeled with rotten vegetables.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Tom,
My point was not that one or another point of view about the cause of the universe is correct or incorrect or even dastardly. It had to do with adopting a point of view about the primary cause and then allowing it to guide the interpretation of empirical evidence. My point did have to do with allowing empirical evidence to lead us where it will without ideological disruptions. Everyone is welcome to their own particular opinion about original cause, but no one is welcome to shape the interpretation of empirical evidence to serve that view. Decisions have been made during the development of theoretical physics that shape the interpretation of empirical evidence to serve a view that is not substantiated by empirical evidence. I have pointed out that the first step in that process of injecting an unsubstantiated view into theory was the choice to make mass an indefinable (some texts today say secdondary) property.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
Jason,
You are correct. It has been a long time since I thought about the properties of an aether. You Jogged my memory. It was thought to have a fine particulate nature where the particles passed the wave along while they remained oscillating about a point. Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Do you feel comfortable slandering a whole class of people without a single example?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 19:42 GMT
Tom,
I can't tell whether or not your last message about slander was for me or someone else. Your subject is not my subject. So, I will assume you have something you wish to say to whomever that has nothing to do with my messages.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
John,
I believe that I understand the experiment and what it showed. It showed that the speed of light does not vary on the surface of the earth as a result of orientation with respect to the direction of travel of the earth. Followup experiments showed that changes in altitude of portions of the earth confirmed the findings of the initial experiment. Whatever, one thought about the nature of an aether was conjecture. The original experiment did not disprove the existence of an aether for all interested parties. That was the purpose of the followup altitude experiments. No aether drag was detectable. However, there is something that the original and followup experiments did not prove. It did not prove that the speed of light was the same in each instance. Corrections to this way in which I remember the experiment are welcome.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Tom,
A massive fundamental particle, like an electron, has some interconnection to everything else through this Higgs field. The actual interconnection is done with what physicists think is the Higgs particle. Here is my problem. I'm ok with a Higgs field that pervades all space; I'm ok with fields in general. But things like virtual photon particles that implement E&M and virtual Higgs boson particles that implement mass seem awkward to me. A vacuum of 3D space is not expected to behave relativistically. But the physics model has point particles in a 3D space, and the 3D is scratched out and replaced by a 4D called space-time. That seems awkward. What is wrong with replacing that with point particles that are interconnected by "action-at-a-distance" sticks? The sticks would be the Higgs field. The sticks could also be interpreted as space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT
The problem may be our idea of the vacuum. We tend to “pack” the vacuum with lots of stuff. We have virtual modes which go from 0 to ∞ and we calculate this enormous ZPE (ħ/2)∫[a^†(k), a(k)]dω(k) = (ħ/2)∫dω and so forth. Yet we know that the cosmological constant, which is due to this vacuum energy, is very small and so these contribution are nearly zero. We have some sort of conflict there. The Casimir effect is measured for quantum electrodynamics. The virtual modes of the photon vacuum are restricted to half integer values between two metal plates, whilst outside the modes are a continuum. This means there is a difference in the energy density of the vacuum between the plates, or this is how we interpret this. The Lamb shift is another vacuum energy effect. The quantum field theory (QFT) of this works pretty darn well. Yet on some level we may be faced with a crisis here.
Things begins to hit trouble with the vacuum energy density expected with the standard model. At this stage standard QFT theories go bad with respect to renormalization of amplitudes. The “salvation” in part is the Higgs mechanism, which replaces all of this high energy stuff in the vacuum with a Higgs condensate. At lower energy components of the Higgs doublets are absorbed into the Z and W^{+/-} particles and standard QFT rules hole. However, the vacuum energy density should be quite large, on the order of 174GeV^4, which is tied to the Higgs field. This resulted in problems with the cosmological constant early on, where QFT predicted a universe with a much larger vacuum energy density than what our observed universe could be derived from. The accelerated expansion of the universe and so called dark energy put further problems on this idea of the vacuum. Now the LHC is placing exclusions on the Higgs particle, which means we are likely faced with a crisis in our understanding of the vacuum structure of the universe.
It may be premature to state that the Higgs particle does not exist. Clearly something does have to change at the TeV scale of energy. The problem as I see it is that we have been packing all sorts of degrees of freedom into the vacuum. This is analogous to the aether problem of the 19th century, where to understand how an EM wave propagated in space there was imposed some continuous fluid-like field. If this was composed of particles of some sort, partons on atomicules, the number of degrees of freedom was enormous, and was infinite in the continuous limit. Einstein replaced all of this nonsense with a system of symmetries, 3 rotations and 3 boosts. I increasingly think that something like this is waiting in the wings.
LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"The problem may be our idea of the vacuum. We tend to “pack” the vacuum with lots of stuff."
I think this is true. For any other readers, there is no way that I know anywhere near as much theory as does Dr. Crowell, but, everytime I see a catch-basin for theory I see evidence of error.
Corrections to this are welcome.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 23:24 GMT
Higgs are a pure joke, then not necessary to loose time with that, neither to loose monney also.
The real problem, and it's even axiomatic, respecting the gravitation,is that the cause of mass is external...that has no sense if we link with the pure evolution. The higgs and their external cause of mass are a pure joke,indeed the cause is intrinsic to mass.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 05:41 GMT
The largest massive scalar should be called ordinary mass covariance, a one form that builds out the larger universe of dark matter and dark energy. Higgs represents the one form, dark matter a vector, and dark energy a vector field. Covariance is a geometrical object for which there is no landscape, other than what we can imagine. The higgs we discover will be a measuring stick fo dark matter, will it not?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
Never the higgs shall be find, then of course all investors , rational , understand this simple evidence.
A matter vector and a fields vector ahahahah it is that of course. And after what ???? JUST A BIG JOKE
The LHC is there to help humanity, the rest is vain, then of course the pseudo businessmen, we know and the lobbyists also. Taste for monney or taste for truths and truth.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 06:21 GMT
At the risk of throwing cold water on this party, I'm still predicting no Higgs. And no SUSY.
LC is likely correct when he says: "we are likely faced with a crisis in our understanding of the vacuum structure of the universe."
And a few other things.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
Of course we have to be careful, for the LHC has collected only about .1% of the data it is expected to gather over the next decade. Further, something must take place at the TeV scale of energy. There must be some sort of phase transition in the vacuum and particle spectrum at around this energy. The minimally supersymmetric model (MSSM) predicts a Higgs spectrum, which are degrees of freedom which are assigned to the vacuum, where three sets of these (sets due to a sum over transverse momenta) go into particle states W^{+/-} and Z. In effect something like this must happen, but it may be that there is a deeper aspect to this, where rather than a vacuum “aether-like” structure, this is a manifestation of some underlying symmetry or principle.
LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
That picture of a posterboard says that: The Higgs particle...is predicted by the Standard Model. I understood it to be an added-on patchwork type necessity for a theory that could not otherwise explain or predict the existence of mass and gravity. What gives? Is my understanding wrong?
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 01:31 GMT
James,
In my opinion you are correct that "The Higgs particle...predicted by the Standard Model [is] an added-on patchwork type necessity for a theory that could not otherwise explain or predict the existence of mass and gravity."
There are severe problems besides the Higgs, for example the existence of left-handed neutrinos, but no right-handed ones. And the existence of neutrino...
view entire post
James,
In my opinion you are correct that "The Higgs particle...predicted by the Standard Model [is] an added-on patchwork type necessity for a theory that could not otherwise explain or predict the existence of mass and gravity."
There are severe problems besides the Higgs, for example the existence of left-handed neutrinos, but no right-handed ones. And the existence of neutrino mass. And the unexplained fact of three 'families of particles' [but no more].
Even the existence of 'color' is an hypothesis -- it has never been observed. [Don't repeat this, as it is heresy.]
For that matter, even quarks themselves have never been observed [ I don't doubt their existence.] The explanation for this, "quark confinement" depends upon a number N_f that appears to be 3 but shows up as a cutoff at about 17. In describing quark confinement the world's expert, Frank Wilczek, explains that "the disturbance grows large and threatening and must be canceled off." The word "threatening" [not normally used in particle physics] is used 3 times and never explained. So much for our understanding of quark confinement. As Nobelist Veltmann says: "confinement has been understood up to a point, but there exists no rigorous theoretical proof."
Nucleons [proton and neutron] are expected to have contributions from virtual 'strange quarks', but these don't show up. Even the simplest two-nucleon particle, the deuteron, composed of six quarks has a 'cigar shape' that no one can explain. Why don't the quarks collapse to a more spherical structure? And the various spin properties of nucleons are completely unexplained. The 'lattice QCD' models are laughably simple and generally produce results between one and two place accuracy.
Up until 2006 QCD theorists were predicting a 'weak quark gas' at high temps [such as RHIC gold-on-gold collisions]. When they reached these temps, they found a 'perfect fluid' [as predicted by my theory.]
When one decay path that my model predicted was not seen I went looking for the reason. The reason is that the analysis software had a 'veto algorithm' that threw away the signal I predicted. Some physicists believe that the LHC is so software dependent that it's unlikely to find anything the software is not written to look for. The analysis software [some of which code is 30 years old] pretty much uses lists of interactions, branching ratios and Monte Carlo algorithms to make sense of the data.
Some serious problems are supposed to be addressed with Supersymmetry (SUSY) but the LHC is finding not the slightest hint of SUSY.
James, there are many other problems, some too complex to lay out in a simple comment. [ I wrote "The Chromodynamics War" to explain these problems and to show how another theory solves them.]
From the beginning of the twentieth century, with photons, electrons, and alpha particles, we've come a long way baby. But when you consider that this was done by smashing microscopic particles together at high energy and seeing what comes out, you realize that symmetry methods assumed undue importance as the only way that worked. I contend that success of this operational tool does not imply appropriateness as the central point of theory, but I'm in a small minority. I prefer to start at this end of the twentieth century and look back, knowing what we now know about the particles. One comes up with a very different theory from this perspective. But the hundred thousand or so workers in the field have all been trained on QED and QCD, and little things like 120 orders of magnitude error in vacuum energy and 4% error in proton radius do not bother them much.
I predict not much new is going to come out of LHC, and I predict this on the basis of my theory.
The symmetry approaches resemble somewhat the use of pentagrams to summon up demons, IMO.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
James Putnam replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
William Orem,
You included that poster, what is your opinion? For other readers: Any physicists who agree or disagree with the poster, could you please give some input here? With all the expense involved in looking for the Higg's particle, I assume that there are physicists who would describe the existence of the Higg's particle as being predicted at a high enough probability to justify that cost. Your responses are invited to be over my head. I just think that they should be put forward for discussion to see if professionals agree and give some basis for why or why not? Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
"Up until 2006 QCD theorists were predicting a 'weak quark gas' at high temps [such as RHIC gold-on-gold collisions]. When they reached these temps, they found a 'perfect fluid' [as predicted by my theory.]"
It seems from the time of the ancient Greeks, we've been asking; What's the smallest possible unit and the answer keeps coming back; Whatever it is, they are all connected. The network is primary.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
"The network is primary."
Changing your tune, are you, John? Last I remember, you were asserting "Motion is primary."
That's the problem with assertions in the absence of formal proofs and experiment. Everything's true and nothing's false. Or else, it's the other way around.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
Tom,
Why do you bother trying to put me down, when you can't even be bothered to remember what we have argued over, let alone try to figure out anything I say?
We just had a discussion over on the Color me Surprised post, about whether the node or network is primary, in the context of Big Bang theory.
One of my arguments is that we are in no position to really declare anything as truly primary, as the very concept is based on a finite reality.
Now of course you could have pointed out this is counter to stating networks are primary, but the problem is that I simply didn't state what networks are prior to, i.e, nodes, because the observation was addressed to Jason and Edwin, so I didn't think I needed to add every possible clarification.
Then again, an infinite network is logical, whereas an infinite node would be far less likely, if not illogical. Even the singularity keeps growing hair, much to the chagrin of the purists.
The argument you did happen to reference is whether geometric patterns, or dynamic processes are more fundamental. To which I've been arguing the math is an emergent model of reality, not foundational to it. Thus motion being primary to math.
To the extent this ties into Jason's and Edwin's conversation, I was thinking in terms of Jason's dynamic light network, as a solution to describing a field that isn't only described in terms of quantum particles.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT
Knowing what one means by "primary" would be helpful. I don't try to put you down -- that would be ad hominem. I just don't want readers to get an impression that your claims are either well formed or valid.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Certainly, the Standard Model is not a TOE. Neutrino mass and SR implies that right-handed neutrinos exist. If 'an observer' were to Lorentz transform ahead of a left-handed neutrino (that must travel slower than c because it has mass), and look back at the neutrino, then that 'observer' would observe a right-handed spinning neutrino. The problem is that right-handed neutrino couplings are very weak (the LHC will not observe gravitational couplings) and pretty much impossible for current experiments to directly observe.
Simple models such as SO(10) might categorize the known fermions (and right-handed neutrinos belong to a singlet), but - to your point - do not fundamentally explain 3 generations. In my models, a 2-D G2 hexagonal graphene-like lattice keeps popping up as important. Such a G2 could easily explain the 3-fold nature of the Strong Force. A dual G2 (another G2 - but rotated by 90 degrees relative to the first - looks like the imaginary axis in an Argand plane) that is ALSO S-dual (i.e. significantly weaker couplings than the Strong Force) could easily explain the 3-fold nature of Generations. Experiments involving the Strong Force are not extremely accurate because we rely on Perturbation Theory, but Perturbation Theory doesn't work very well when the 'small quantity' that the power expansion series is based on is too large (like the 'Strong' Force coupling), and this explains the ~5% error associated with Strong Force experiments.
Regardless - we need to explain the origin of mass. If Higgs/ Goldstones and Gravitons are related (via my proposed modulus-spin-2 arithmatic), then we may need massive Gravitons and a massless Goldstone. A true TOE may require more than 'just' a single Higgs.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 19:02 GMT
Ray,
You say that "If 'an observer' were to Lorentz transform ahead of a left-handed neutrino (that must travel slower than c because it has mass), and look back at the neutrino, then that 'observer' would observe a right-handed spinning neutrino."
In some ways that's akin to saying "If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground" or "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs."
In other words, an imaginary transformation that cannot be physically implemented is meaningless. The fact that the math says something to which reality does not correspond is of no significance.
My point about 'weak gas' vs 'perfect fluid' is that the Standard Model has almost no predictive power, even about the most basic things. And it is full of holes. So I fully agree that it's not a TOE, but I don't even think it's a particularly useful framework. It is complex enough to keep people working in it and believing in its constructs. I view that as a negative.
You say, "Regardless - we need to explain the origin of mass."
If one starts with the Standard Model, then one must explain mass. If one starts with mass, then one must explain the Standard Model. The second approach is the one I take.
John,
I too believe that "math is an emergent model of reality, not foundational to it." This partially explains my opinion of the approaches based on symmetry. Symmetry arises from physical reality, physical reality does not arise from symmetry. Symmetry is obviously a powerful tool in physics, but I do not share others' belief that a 'final' symmetry will explain all. Without going off into the weeds, this seems incompatible with free will, among other things.
I view the field as a continuum, and the recent discovery that 'reality' appears to be *at least* 13 orders of magnitude 'grainier' than the Planck length seems to support this idea. Some may want to choose this 'new' length as fundamental, but I think it is probably just the limit of resolution given the details of the particular experiment. I don't think there's a limit, hence the continuum.
No shortage of opinions on FQXi.
Very interesting times we are living in.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT
Tom,
I certainly don't try to hide my own limitations, but simply push them as far as I'm able. I suspect any new visitors to these discussions are likely to form their own opinions, based on their own priorities.
Edwin,
It is quite interesting to watch various physical processes play out in the political and economic situations, on scales beyond whatever has come before. Sort of like a grand scientific experiment.
Our framing devices, national, political, religious, corporate, monetary, etc. are bubbles of human need, intention and desire, competing an increasingly gladiatorial fight to the finish. The result will likely be some fusion we cannot yet conceive, or ashes and dust.
I do think there is an opportunity for someone to try to explain how these processes work, at a level of popular understanding, without a particular bias towards any current frame, but within the very obvious confines of this planet as the sole stage and how that set of boundaries will influence the outcome. A bit like a game of Blackjack, where the frame that most closely fits within the limits will win out over those that either exceed them, or not fully encompass the necessary elements.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Edwin.
I agree that observation is the most fundamental level of Reality, and it should disturb us that there are components of our theories (such as right-handed neutrinos) for which we might have specific expectations, but we might never have detailed observations. I still consider theoretical consistency to be important.
Sir Isaac Newton (and Galileo before him) assumed 'mass' without a detailed origin of mass, and that definition has worked well for observations of F=ma. Simple QED does not explain mass, but the Higgs boson arises from a consistent quantum field origin for mass, and conveniently provides the necessary longitudinal components for the W and Z bosons (which have been studied in detail). Any quantized theory of GEM would require a quantized field origin of mass. If you have a classical (Newtonian) origin of mass, then you will have a classical GEM, and a quantum physicist - somewhere - will blast holes in your ideas.
Although Nuclear Physics builds up masses out of partons (for instance, the mass of a proton is much greater than the negligible individual masses of light-weight quarks and massless gluons - most of the proton's effective rest mass is due to the kinetic energy of these partons), you still cannot have 'kinetic energy' of light-weight partons without a fundamental mass scale in the first place.
Furthermore, the Higgs is connected to the 'vacuum' and the 'aether' of ancient philosophy.
Have you seen Philip Gibbs' claims of a possible LHC sighting of a
144 GeV Higgs? Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 22:08 GMT
Ray,
As I posted on Joy's thread, "Consider two incompatible theories A and B, both of which are reasonably effective in their respective realms of application (say A=QM, B=GR). We desire a new theory, C. We may reasonably require that both A and B "fit" into C's conceptual box, but we should *not* require that C fit into A or B's box(es)."
It would appear that a new theory must explain Cosmology (General Relativity), Standard Model (Particle Physics), and Quantum Mechanics. Having focused on cosmology and particle physics for several years, I am currently writing up the details of quantum mechanics. And after all of the resident experts advised me that only an idiot still pursues de Broglie-type particles, the recent experiments based on Aharonov's 'weak measurement theory' are finding, guess what-- de Broglie-Bohm type results!
Yes I've seen Phillip Gibb's write-ups (but thanks for the link). I don't know exactly what they are seeing, but I don't think it's the Higgs. If it's really there, and I had to guess what it was, I'd expect some interaction based on W and Z bosons. We'll just have to see.
Otherwise, *every* reported experiment lately [Gravity Probe B, INTEGRAL 'graininess', LHC's no SUSY, Maeda's non-dispersing Bohr orbits, Steinberg's particle trajectories, and Lundeen's direct probe of wavefunction] has been compatible with my theory, therefore --following the advice of a very wise man-- I'm having lot's of fun...
John,
I generally agree with your socio-politico-economic observations, but things are too complex and too far from the physics I'm pursuing to go down this path [in comments here] at the moment. I am interested in your observations.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
Hi Edwin,
More correctly, 'no SUSY yet' (below about 800 GeV), but didn't we mostly expect 'New Physics' to occur at the TeV scale anyway? We aren't there yet! A non-minimal Higgs sector might be our first observation of SUSY-like phenomena. Otherwise, I suspect that our early observations of SUSY may be 1) the Light Stop Squark (it could have the lowest mass excluding the Neutralino, and an interesting signature with b-tagged jets), or 2) Charginos (I would anticipate a high cross-section for production once we attain the appropriate mass scale).
Have Fun and may the LHC crank out many more years worth of data! (In other words, I hope that the faltering world economies don't necessitate a premature shut down of the LHC).
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 23:47 GMT
Hi Edwin,
You said, "Have Fun and may the LHC crank out many more years worth of data! (In other words, I hope that the faltering world economies don't necessitate a premature shut down of the LHC). "
That's the lesson that the physics community doesn't want to face. Particle physics might be fun for physicists, but those who pay the bills are waiting for a breakthrough that will justify that expenditure. That's reality. I still think that transmitting redshift will lead to a gravity drive. I really don't mind if someone snags the idea and runs with it. But of course, nobody will. If no new inspiring technology comes along, then the LHC staff will eventually have trouble justifying its cost.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 00:26 GMT
Hi Jason,
You called me 'Edwin'? Once upon a time, I had hoped to work with the Superconducting Super-Collider in Dallas. In fact, I'm visiting Dallas next week. Congress axed the project $2B into a $10B budget. I am very aware of the politics and economics involved in these Mega-Science projects. We can only hope that 'fundamental research' will lead to new technologies that help mankind more than they cost. It would be a shame to shutdown the LHC after all of the capital investments just because we don't think that we can afford the cost of people and operating expenses. It would be short-sighted to shut down the LHC if they discover a 'Higgs', but don't understand the subtleties of TeV-scale physics.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 00:45 GMT
Ray,
I agree that it's too early to call 'no SUSY' although I've been reading a number of such statements lately. I also hope that the LHC stays open long enough to prove you or me correct. My theory will stand little chance if the LHC closes before the negative results are clearly established. But if nothing new shows up by the time the LHC reaches full power, then I'll conclude nothing is going to show up. I know most will just say, "we know it's there, we just need a bigger collider."
Jason,
Normally I'd agree with you, but since I've got a dog in this fight, I hope we at least get what we paid for. Also you said, "the LHC staff will eventually have trouble justifying its cost." Government workers are masters at justifying cost. That's the main problem we face today.
Good to hear from you.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
Edwin,
"I generally agree with your socio-politico-economic observations, but things are too complex and too far from the physics I'm pursuing to go down this path [in comments here] at the moment."
"I hope that the faltering world economies don't necessitate a premature shut down of the LHC). "
Is it safe to say that physicists have their heads in the clouds more often than they have their feet on the ground?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 01:42 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Government workers are masters at spewing horse hockey. Whether we admit it or not, we are all subject to the need for results. Economies will not grow if you feed them horse hockey. However, if you gave them a gravity field generator, the economy would really grow.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
Jason,
I think you need to be looking to angel investors rather than physicists for support. If you are convinced you can build it and can convince people with so much money they can afford to take a punt on high risk ventures then do it. How much could it cost to build a small prototype? Not that much surely? That money could be lost but if it works the potential pay back is huge. Thats just the kind of odds investors like, small cost but potentially huge return on investment. (The kind of gambling that does not have to pay back every time but gives a nice overall return, covering the losses, when it does.)
However having said that I am with Edwin in that I am not convinced that you are not the victim of a basic logical error. Just because gravity appears to give red shift it does not mean that red shift generates gravity. Why not prove us wrong when the thing is built, with your investors money, and it works.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Georgina,
If physics was logical, then Newton would have figured it all out 500 years ago. Relativity is not logical if the implementation of physics occurs from a crystal lattice. I already know that a gravity field generator is an energy conservation violating device. I also know that it is illogical that photons can generate gravity waves in the same way that a puny David killed a 6'9" Goliath. In addition, flying saucers, which cause scientific minds to cringe and occasionally bust out laughing, they have to use gravity field generators. Since flying saucers destroy their own evidence and credibility, then you can take comfort in their lack of existence. So what does physics have to offer the world economy that teeters on the edge of contraction? A Higgs boson? What does a Higgs boson have to do with:
Inertia?
Invariance of c?
Space-time?
E=mc^2?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 20:02 GMT
Quite simply, if the Higgs boson cannot make sense out of relativity, then physics has nothing to offer the world economy.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
Jason,
....but I think relativity -is- logical but not obviously so. I don't know where the crystal lattice bit came from but I have heard Ray talking about such a thing in relation to his TOE.
I don't think the Higgs is necessary as IMHO mass and gravity are more likely the result of the movement of matter and particles in a "direction" not accounted for within the 3D structure of space-time. That being the sum of all of the movement -at all scales- not just what is observed. I have trouble thinking of that as a particle. It is certainly not one that is likely to be captured or detected by smashing subatomic particles together. The Higgs boson would just complete the standard model nicely. So the desire to find it is like the desire to complete the periodic table, it seems to me.
Jason I think you just have to do it if you are convinced it will work. But trying to convince investors using the flying saucer propulsion argument might be a mistake, unless you know they are flying saucer enthusiasts. Perhaps alternatively you could find a group of sci-fi/ufo enthusiasts that would each chip into the pot for a prototype gravity generator, for a proportional share of the profits if it works out well.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Georgina,
There is no escaping the logic that I must do this project myself. Money would help but is not really what holds me back. All of the hard work necessary to get the shift photon generator running correctly is really what holds me back.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 00:52 GMT
Jason,
Is it not running correctly or do you just think that it might not?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 01:29 GMT
Georgina,
There are two ways to build a shift photon generator.
The first way is to use a prism; I have to aim 8 LEDs, each with a different frequency, at the prism. If all 8 LED's are on, then I should get white light out of the prism. So all light will be traveling in one direction. If I turn on/off each frequency, then I get the effect of frequency shifting light.
The second way is to use many groups of 8 LEDs, of different frequencies. In a 2D lattice configuration, I solder these groups of LED's into a plane that is nXm groups. Depending upon how much money is available, many I will have 10x10 groups of 8 LED's. At a far enough distance from the surface plane of the LED's, it will look like frequency shifting light.
So far, I am procrastinating at the first way, with the prism, because aiming LED's at a prism is very awkward. Probably this week, I will start soldering wires to LED's. The problem I have is that I don't know if the wires are long enough. I don't even know if I can get the LED to point, and emit its light, along the linear path away from the wires. The wires have to be long and straight, like a line, so that I can aim the light along the same line. Does that make sense? In other words, implementing the geometry is terribly awkward.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 03:53 GMT
Georgina,
I have the answer. I just can't do this project on my own. However, I work for an electronics company. They actually have everything I need. I need to put together a proposal. As my employer, they should get first opportunity to help me and possibly share in the reward if it works.
I just need to make sure of something. There are two reasons why the physics community doesn't like the shift photon generator idea as a possible gravity field generator.
1. Gravity generation violates conservation of energy, which should be impossible.
2. Gravity is caused by huge quantities of mass-energy; it doesn't make sense that some LED's could generate gravity waves.
Are there any other reasons why it's not expected to work?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 07:08 GMT
Jason,
You've given two pretty big reasons to be skeptical.
My unconventional viewpoint: I think the -total- movement of the object at all scales disturbs the unseen environment within space (not space-time) and that effects em transmission, stretching out the waves. The observer creates a reconstruction from data received and the distortion is incorporated into the space-time appearance. The unseen environment is changing the observed appearance of the light, the light is not affecting the unseen environment. Other than in the way light normally affects the unseen environment. So just mimicking the appearance observed does not mean that it will generate the desired environmental disturbance in object reality, that could then in turn affect an object. (I previously sent you the link to the group who had achieved some movement on a very small scale using another method.) I am prepared to be surprised.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
Georgina,
You said: "So just mimicking the appearance observed does not mean that it will generate the desired environmental disturbance in object reality, that could then in turn affect an object. "
A billion laypersons are wise enough to say: you won't know unless you try. I already believe that the energy of the big bang came from the negative energy of gravity. So what's a little more energy? The energy needed to lift a 100,000 metric ton star ship into the sky will induce it's very tiny contribution to gravity, anyway.
I am pretty sure we look at the physics differently, and that's OK. That will lead us to ask different questions. In a game of physics "connect the dots", I wanted a gravity drive. Nobody else is bold enough to suggest such a thing. So the markets will continue to teeter on the edge of contraction. How much of reality is imagination? Let me ask that another way. How much of your investment portfolio is effected by imagination, for better or worse?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT
Jason,
As I said- if you are convinced it will work build it.I am prepared to be surprised. Thats as positive as I can get about it.
You just asked for reasons why its -not- expected to work and I took the time to clearly spell out what -I- think. I don't know everything and a whole lot of what I think I know could be entirely wrong. As could a whole lot of what other people, including you, think aswell.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Georgina,
Did you see the movie, Limitless? If you did, then you will understand when I say I wish I had some NZT-48.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
Hi Ray,
It's good to hear from you. Of course you're Ray! Who else would you be?
From my perspective, looking for a Higgs "particle" really means that the whole Higgs field concept is broken. I just don't see a 4D crystal lattice as being that which implements the physical universe. If it were, then time travel would be possible. Since it's not, then that which implements the laws of physics should look more like a network. I suggested the use of balls and sticks. Balls represent mass & reference frames. The sticks provide a way to fix the velocity of light to c (vac) for all emitters and observers. The way this differs from a Higgs particle/field is that the ball/stick model interconnects all matter and all energy (light).
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
I fully agree with William that scientists should stop with using the word GOD as a preposition to ideals they are chasing after, sorry for George Smoot who said on 23 april 1992 about CBR : "If you are religious it is like looking at GOD". The God view is also used in a in my opinion non positive way to be able to observe our Universe(s) in a non causal way.
In principle it was the intention to simplify our system by stopping the intellectual creation of more builing stones of the known Universe, now however SUSY (supersymetry) was invented (good idea but it does not make the world more easy , the amount of particles doubled !!!) and all kind of other predictions were made that would explain our not knowing and change it to knowing, also particles were invented in a mathematical way, string theory added 10 dimensions and 10^100 paralel worlds (or more, doesn't matter in this kind of figures, a great cahnce that it is not true and that there are more as 10^500 paralel worlds).
where are we going to ?
Occams razor is needed, back to the principals, and you have to admit that there are things we cannot explain.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
"God" is the excuse to remain ignorant and a baby. Indeed, it is the ultimate denial of truth, responsiblity, nature, growth, inevitability, and reality.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
Wilhelmus,
I don't know how many times something inspired me, I researched it, had a brilliant idea, and then had to gut the idea because it didn't fit. For whatever reason, I have to be inspired to make progress towards a goal. Whether that inspiration is God, aliens or something equally titilating, it gets me to ask the hard questions. When I ask the hard questions, e.g., (does it satisfy Occam's razor?), then often times the idea itself is gutted and I have to start over. I have piles of thousands of gutted ideas that came to me from whatever "powers that be".
My answer to your comment is that the inspiration, whatever it may be, is only a means to create a revolutionary idea. But then the idea has to be tested against other physics to reveal its weaknesses.
As for the "God particle", it might have inspired lots of people to look at it, but you're right. Physicists shouldn't include God as part of the physics model. God wouldn't want to be reduced to an equation anyway.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
Hi Jason,
I appreciated very much your post from the heart.
It is true that our “inspiration” is a wonderful event each time that we are dealing wit it. In my opinion it is part of our consciousness , which is something that we cannot describe in formula’s (sorry for Tommy Gibertson) just like we are having problems with gravity, but if you see gravity as emerging from some higher level of “reality” (Verlinde) then it becomes more understandable (FQXi articles/display/132).
It is in the contact that is established between our consciousness and TOTAL SIMULTANEITY (see
my essay)
that we are aware of infinities, religion and the God idea, because like these Total Simultaneity is non causal, non deterministic, there all probabilities become possibilities, all the parallel worlds we think of are present but not in the space/time way , a probability does not need space nor time, in this what I call fifth dimension one cannot count from one to ten.
Scientists should not use the God name to ask attention for their ideas, it is not a good idea neither that they think their inspiration is the ultimate one and therefore use the word GOD , everything in science is always changing and evolving , in our 4D causal Universe the ultimate truth is not existing, if it is existing it is in eternity and that is the same as unreachable, like the God understanding of our consciousness.
Scientists can however also think about this ideas and try to understand not only the HOW but also the WHY, nothing wrong with that, for that you could see the SCIENTIFIC GOD JOURNAL, from dr. Huping Hu, he also published my essay , because of the parallels with the understanding of Total Simultaneity and the idea of a God , however Total Simultaneity is not a creator, it is consciousness itself that creates its own universe.
This is all perhaps not in line with the blog, we can continue on the thread that comes along with my essay.
Keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 23:27 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
I think we agree that science and religion should be kept separate for the simple reason that they serve different functions. Science/physics gives engineers something specific to work with. Religion gives people hope and a more positive view of the world.
To be honest, I think that some kind of universal consciousness really does exist. The only usefulness in atheism is that it helps us keep religion separate from science. We really don't want towers of babble. Having said that, there are probably a few people out there who can obtain helpful/useful knowledge from this universal consciousness, and then successfully translate it into physics equations. I tried to do that, but I fell short on the "translate to physics equations" part. Oh, well. We can't all be Einsteins.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Wilhelmus and Jason,
Both of you discussed consciousness and equations. I generally define consciousness as awareness plus free will. Awareness includes awareness of the physical world and free will includes the ability to make things happen in the physical world. Therefore, in my understanding, consciousness "couples to" the physical world, at least to some degree. Therefore, when one speaks of 'equations' relating to consciousness, there are several possibilities. First, equations are impossible or nonsensical. This is a view of consciousness as 'magic'. It interacts with the physical world but without any dynamical equations.
Alternatively, it is possible to conceive of the "inner workings" of awareness and will as being 'beyond equations', but the "interface to matter" as being describable by equations. It is this latter that I have done, and I believe much insight can be derived in that manner.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I think we all generally agree that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe. In my opinion, there is a vague resemblence between networks (the simplest kind of brain), quantum mechanics (via quantum entanglement), and the interconnectedness of all massive objects. We should consider ourselves lucky that the universe doesn't "think at us" in more dramatic ways.
Whatever this universal consciousness might be, I don't think it wants to be reduced to a physics equation anymore than you do. Do you want all of your actions, words and thoughts constrained to a physics equations? Do you want to be perfectly predictable? Nobody does.
I would be best if the physics community simply admitted that there is a portion of reality that remains mysterious. The best we can do is ask it for a technological "hint".
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 03:09 GMT
Jason,
"reduced to a physics equation" is a redundancy. Equations are reductionistic.
There are two aspects of physical reality; Energy expanding out and mass/order consolidating/contracting in. These describe the dichotomy of awareness, which is like energy, always expanding out to fill whatever space it can, versus knowledge, which is like mass, that it is trying to stabilize and order and define all that it can and constantly expending awareness in order to do so. Much as mass is constantly radiating away energy as it further consolidates structure into ever denser material.
We are now watching this happen on a global political and economic scale, as the downward pressure of the status quo pushes down on the lives of the larger population that lack political and economic levers, but in their raw energy and sense of self awareness, realize they must push back up against these constrictions.
The old status quo will be shed, much as a crab sheds its shell, or a star goes super nova. Eventually though, stability will set in again and a new stage of order will coalesce. Eventually it too will place more constraints on its constituent energy and the process will repeat.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 03:20 GMT
Hi John,
Yes, equations are reductionists. Do you, or does anyone you know, want to be completely predictable? I think not. That was my point.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 09:56 GMT
Jason,
Neither do you want life to be completely and utterly chaotic. Knowledge is a process of discerning the order in the chaos. Sometimes though, the descriptions we try to impose are nonsensical, but they serve the purpose of illuminating between order and randomness through trial and error.
Without randomness, life would be just a flatline on the heart monitor, but without order, there would be no heart to monitor.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT
Edwin : Consciousness as Intelligence plus Free Will is in my opinion the beginning of an understanding of something that we will not be able to describe in words , consciousness is more it is the origin of our future moments on the life-line that we are creating ourselves in this 4D causal universe, all these consciousness together can indeed become a raw power, no longer an individual pin prick but a flaming very dangerous sword, that can be used both the good way or the bad way, and thus indicating the future of the spieces. Soon we will be with 7 billion people, ...
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
If there was a connection between consciousness AND the quantum randomness, then one could use meditation to exert physical effects upon the universe, upon ones physical body, and upon others. If true, then mathematical physics is a square peg trying to enter a round hole.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 03:21 GMT
Jason,
Don't overlook reciprocity. If you want perfect freedom from outside influences, then you lose the ability to exert influence as well. As the old Kris Kristofferson song goes, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 03:32 GMT
John,
I'm not sure I follow. I am hoping that consciousness can skew quantum randomness. I'm just not hopeful that it can be done to a scientific standard. Maybe ghosts get bored with physics experiments.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 10:05 GMT
Jason,
Given it comes up with such ideas as multiworlds, I would suspect there is something fishy about QM anyway. Since I'm not required to master the technicalities, I find the dichotomies of Complexity Theory to be a more useful description of reality. The fact is that we do have degrees of freedom, but they have consequences. This might seem to defeat the purpose of the concept of freewill, but as the QM theorists would say, we are all entangled. It's like I pointed out in previous discussions about your interest in faster than light travel, in that the faster you move, the more restrictions it places on your ability to maneuver. This in many ways creates another dichotomy, in that the more efficient you become at relating to your environment, the more tuned into it you have to become and the more you become a part of it. So you start to lose that cartesian dualism of being an isolated observer, but the loss of this sense of individuality creates a freedom from being in the observers box. In sports, it's called "muscle memory." You train yourself to the point that your nervous system is entirely integrated with your environment, to the point of being able to act before you consciously register and consider the thought of acting. So it become a question of just what the terms "free" and "will" actually mean.
As I pointed out to Tom in earlier arguments, this is what "intuition" is, but that physicists have a very primitive understand of neurology. Intuition is the ability to efficiently access one's store of knowledge, not some pre-programed set of rules. So intuition for a five year old, or a baseball player, or a nuclear physicist are all entirely different.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 16:22 GMT
Hi Jason & John,
As a matter of fact each moment we receive signals from the "outside world" and we then store them in folders in our brain. This machinery leads to "awareness", not to be confused with consciousness, awareness is also when your computer via his camera "observes" a red balloon and gives a warning in another program inside his system (that program activates a sign that we experience as a signal from the outside world).
Our consciousness creates a subworld from all these awarenesses that results in the EGO the I, this is why with Alzheimer you loose your I awareness and time feeling, you are entereing than a whole new lifeline of short consciousness, still I think that the influence even than on your circumstances are still on the quantum way of entanglement for creating the future (short moments of a future, that form lines). Even when your past in this situation may be lost for yourself, it is never a lost life line in the non causal fifth dimension (Total Simultaneity).
So (and now I enter a dangerous item) also the people who are no longer among us are still among us in this dimension. All peobabilities become possibillities and come become realities (life lines) here in our 4D causal universe.
Travelling faster than light does not bring you back in the original life line in world A, but you go to world B, the fact that you travel faster than light does not influence the restrictions you have at the origin of your voyage, the restriction is perhaps (I don't know) that you cannot go back to A (restriction of ability), but remember that in the Total Simultaneity the life line your consciousness created in A is a probability that has become a possibillity that has become a reality (in A). For yourself the faster than light travel will just be another moment in your life line experience.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 19, 2011 @ 18:18 GMT
Wilhelmus,
The problem of consciousness/awareness, especially from the orthodox scientific perspective, is that it cannot be measured. Since the current assumption seems to be that only what can be measured qualifies as real, consciousness is not real.
I like your definition of consciousness as emergent from awareness, but mostly as a description of levels. Just as our awareness is...
view entire post
Wilhelmus,
The problem of consciousness/awareness, especially from the orthodox scientific perspective, is that it cannot be measured. Since the current assumption seems to be that only what can be measured qualifies as real, consciousness is not real.
I like your definition of consciousness as emergent from awareness, but mostly as a description of levels. Just as our awareness is subconsciously multifaceted, from which the individual is a construct, with the focus being on those points of attraction demanding the most attention, so too might this describe social organizations, where groups of individuals naturally fall into frames of thinking and following those promoting the favored paradigms.
Just as you might see another person behind a glass wall and not be able to hear what he is trying to tell you, so to might a particular thought, such as someone's name, be in your mind, but the conscious you not be able to recall it. This compartmentalization of awareness might seem inconvenient, to an idealized view, but it creates the definition that makes life possible. If it were all just a featureless meta-consciousness, it would all cancel out the subjectivity which allows us perceive, because knowledge is a function of distilling available information down to what is most pertinent. There would be none of what you define as consciousness, only that elemental awareness.
One of the main points I keep coming back to is that we look at time backwards. It is not a linear narrative from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is that turns future into past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This material simply changes form, so you cannot travel in time, as though folding around that four dimensional geometry might cause different points in time to connect. Assumptions such as multiworlds or block time require there be many universes worth of energy to manifest every moment, or multiples of moments, as the case may be.
In this simple description, there is only the energy to manifest the present and it just changes form.
Now think how this would apply to consciousness/awareness. There would only be that elemental present awareness and the emergent consciousness would be the building up of structure, the folding in on itself of this elemental beingness. In such a reality, you as an individual being are just the series of thoughts that rose to the level of consciousness throughout your life. Underneath that individuality, the distinctions between you and another conscious creature are as fuzzy as those distinctions between different thoughts in your own mind, compartmentalized as they are.
A point I've bounced of Tom lately, to no effect, is that when we add, we are not adding the items in question, but the sets of items and the result is a single larger set. So as we create multiple sets by breaking larger ones, we reduce sets through addition. Say we add two piles of sand together and end up with a larger pile of sand, or add two groups of apples together and end up with a larger group of apples. The same applies when we add up all the parts of a body and have a single body, even though it might be divided into multiple organs, or millions of cells. The same applies to consciousness, when we add up the various thoughts and senses of our mind and they yield that single higher level of consciousness. The same also applies when mobs of people start acting as one.
The problem with our current model of spirituality, monotheism, is that the absolute, the universal state, is basis, not apex. So a spiritual absolute wouldn't be some moral or intellectual ideal from which we fell, but that elemental awareness from which our consciousness rises.
Science assumes biology arises from an accidental circumstance and awareness arose as an emergent effect of that. While this is a perfectly reasonable consideration, there seems to be a strong reluctance to consider it from the opposite view: That the existence of this elemental awareness gave rise to biological organisms. Largely because, as I first said, awareness cannot be measured. What if that elemental awareness is foundational? Probably the strongest argument against it being that life does seem extremely rare, if not unique to this planet, but that is a supposition based on our personal experiences. On the plus side, it would reduce two mysteries, the origin of life and the source of awareness, to one mystery. It would also go a long way to explaining why life is so tenacious and adaptable.
Why most life forms are extremely aware, but relatively dumb and why people get locked into behaviors that are clearly detrimental on the long term would be explainable in terms of bottom up emergence.
Consider how we define groups by creating a single narrative, such as nations and religions define themselves by a chosen storyline. Even cosmology assumes the entire universe started at a point and is branching out from there.
The reality is there are multiple storylines, all intermingled. Some bind together in thick ropes of people acting in unison, while others are individual strands, going their own way. The reality is much more of a dynamic tapestry, than a single unified rope. Even though we might exist as threads in a tapestry, that is in some larger strand, such as the life of this planet, which is then a thread in the tapestry of the local cosmos, that exists in the strand of this galaxy. Even the idea of a singularity keeps growing threads, as that tapestry is infinite.
We are simply the current manifestation of the same awareness that was once dinosaurs and hopefully, one day, will be space explorers.
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 00:17 GMT
John Merryman,
You told Wilhelmus you liked his definition of consciousness as emergent from awareness.
The problem with these discussions is that *everyone* has his own definitions. This makes for wonderful late-nite bull sessions, but nothing will ever result from ten people using ten different definitions.
A Higgs thread is probably not the place to beat this drum, but it would be nice if there were some way we could agree to all use the same words to mean the same thing. For example, when you say "emergent consciousness would be the building up of structure" I think you mean the same as I mean by:
consciousness = awareness plus volition (free will)
intelligence = consciousness plus logic (structure)
Consciousness, as a field-like phenomenon, does not possess structure. It is the interaction of fundamental consciousness with physical reality (meaning structure) that leads to intelligence (and 'ideas' or 'maps' etc).
My point is not that anyone is 'wrong', but that, having written thousands of pages on consciousness, including 'universal' consciousness, animal neural systems, neurological strokes, pre-natal consciousness, the emergence of logic and math, topological aspects, psychedelic aspects, interface to physical reality, and many other aspects of consciousness, I have found these definitions to be the most fruitful, as in bearing fruit.
You ask, "What if that elemental awareness is foundational?" and say "it would reduce two mysteries, the origin of life and the source of awareness, to one mystery."
If you recall my essay
Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, that is exactly the theme I develop. I hope you might have a chance to re-read it based on your current thinking.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 14:06 GMT
for all interested in consciousness and spirituality and universality , I invite you to discuss with us on APS linkedin. It is very relevant the last discussions.
And also , you can read some others threads very relavant. For example,an new post where IBM says that they have success with the a brainy computer. Intriguing all that.We discuss about politics, religions, universality, rationalism, determinism......
FQXi is a wonderful platform like APS linkedin, People from the everywhere can discuss in a total transparence.This revolutionary net is fascinating and so important for the interactions and synergies.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi Steve ,
Could you be more specific on the linkedin blog, I am a member (wanted to quid but was not possible) but cannot find the topic at all, it is just financial, economics, if they ahave a blog on consciousness it would be a great pro.
thanks for your help
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Your essay titled : FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, is a treasure of thoughts, but in essence you indicate yourself in the sentence : " The points themselves have no physiscs per se", that fundamental physics "untill now" does not involve consciousness.
You indicate (like I do) that the Planck lenght, time enad mass are the physicists basic measurement units, fully agrre, after that I lose you , technically.
On page 7 we are together again when you indicate thet " Our theory explains how matter (neutrinos, electrons, and quarrks derives from a consciousness field", her I want to add: the original entanglement of our observations from for example CBR , created our "reality" with all the constants included.
Page 8 : "The essential nature of gravity and consciousness is mysterious", my dear Edwin , I couls not agree more, perhaps the viewpoint of VERLINDE aplies to our insight, regarding the consciousness as a matter of fact agreeing that gravity is a result of a higher dimension , then we can also think of consciousness as the "binding" between these dimensions, call it a field if you want, gravity can be taken in the NEWTON laws fot our dimension, we don't have yet the formula for consciousness perhaps because it is an intermediaire between the two worlds.
Page 9 : "Awareness is always of NOW (including current ideas of past and future) and volition, or ability to act freely, is also centered in the local present". Very impressive, but ... my opinion is that the NOW does not exist , nor the future, our awareness is an image of the past, a past that is prolongued every Planck unit of time (not measurable), our current ideas are alwyas regarding the past, the free will is our power of consciousness to arrange the quantums of space and time into a "life-line", we are living in the past , may have ideas about our future and are ignorant about NOW.
Edwin I like very much your essay, it is after a reread a wonderfull work, sometimes I cannot follow you in the formula's you use, there are very much points in our thinking that are paralel and I hope that we can continue our fruitfull discussion because I learn a lot of it.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
Hi John,
"Everything that cannot be measured is not existing" happily you say that this is the ortodox scientifis idea, I hope it is not yours, because it is a very momental point of view, when you go in the past than we couls not measure a lot of things that are "real" to us by now.
Science is changing every moment, (What is a moment?), our consciousness of knowledge is so changing also every moment, so our awareness of the universe that surrounds us is changing, nothing is stable, reality does not exist, only in our minds. If we become aware of the fact that reality is manuable because we are entangled to a non causal super reality , where a probability can become a possibillity by the power of our consciuosness and a non probability can become a possibility also and so on an on ....than our reality will become the awareness of all the possible pasts of the NOW moment that emerges...and is lost again.
keep on thinking free
ilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you for the kind remarks about my essay on consciousness. I am happy that you were stimulated by it. I appreciate several of your comments, but will remark only as follows.
In my model the consciousness field interacts (directly) with mass in motion (according to the C-field equations). While this is true of ALL mass, the most relevant mass in motion for humans consists of the biological flows--blood, proteins and vesicles in cells, ions in neural axons, vesicular flows across synapses, etc. It is the neural currents of the brain and interconnected nervous system that enhances the field and focuses our local consciousness as 'I' in a way that rocks and flowers cannot match. In particular, the coded maps of the 'past' (as experienced and encoded) can be accessed and the neural logic can act on this info as well as 'current' info to project the 'future'. Our awareness of this (recalled) 'past' and (projected) 'future' occur NOW. There is no other awareness than of NOW, with 'details' of intelligent thought based upon the many billions of interconnected cells and associated stored coded and manipulated information (that is, stable structure). This may extend down to the epigenetic level of DNA (at least for cellular awareness).
But I very much doubt that consciousness, at least at the human level, has anything to do with Planck measure. [I have no idea what happens in a black hole, as far as consciousness goes.] Since the interface between the consciousness field and mass is proportional to mass, proteins couple billions of times more effectively than electrons, based simply on mass ratio. That alone is one reason that (2D)-connected electron-based computers will probably never match or equal protein-based, 3D-connected neural nets.
Dear Steve,
Silicon neural networks are simply connected (2D) networks of analog circuitry based upon neural network algorithms and/or architecture. As I understand it, IBM's announcement is nothing but a marketing push to announce new higher density circuit of the same basic kind as have been built for the last decades. I doubt that there is much that they can do that cannot be done with FPGA devices, in fact I suspect they have simply optimized FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays) for this purpose. There is nothing radically new or significant that I see in their announcement, and certainly nothing with implications for consciousness.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 02:18 GMT
Edwin,
The last few days have been busy. Rereading the essay, but not finished it. I see why you need the singularity to make your theory work though. It's interesting.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT
Hi Edwin, that's why I said them that the only solution is with silicium and biological superimposings, the cognition is biological like its autonomy. The algorythms of sortings and synchros can be made, but it is inttriguing all that. About the consciousness, I have already explained you my points of vue about a kind of "consciousness computer" The evolution is specific and the mass is a result of a specific polariation, then of course the entanglement of our brain is correlated in this logic.
WIlhelmus, free thinking yes, stupidities no.
For linkedin, it is simply APS linkedin, American physical society, we shall discuss about this free thinking like you say. But pay attention, the scientists, there, are very rational.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thanks for your open reply, it explains a lot more to me as all the maths used in your essay, indeed you can use these formula's because you say that consciousness directly influences mass just like gravity indeed does.
As I indicated above I agree more with the idea that gravityis not a fundamental force (like in your view consciousness is),
see FQXi article by Sophie Hebden about the theory of Eric Verlinde, as a matter of fact the ideas of Lee Smolin about phase space has also indications in yhis direction (see article in New Scientist :08 august 2011, by Amanda gefter : Beyond Space Time : Welcome to Phase-Space).
It is my opinion that after the Planck length our universe is no longer causal (like in string theory and LQG), I take this length as a limit just this limit I used because when I wrote my essay , the results from Integral (gamma ray Observatory, see Physorg.com : Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein)were not yet published, which means that 10^-35m became 10^-48m, this in fact does not directly influence my theory because the downwards limit is there, I do not believe in singulairities.
By the way Edwin telekinesis is very understandable in your view isn't it ?
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thanks for studying my essay on consciousness. I am pleased that more and more FQXi participants believe that consciousness must be considered in any complete physical theory of the universe. My original comment was directed to the lack of a common definition for terms such as consciousness, awareness, will, and intelligence, and so I proposed the definitions which I have found to be extremely fruitful.
I have looked at Verlinde's theory and do not think much of it. I have given detailed reasons elsewhere. In my theory gravity is primordial and accounts for *ALL* of the rest of the universe. I see no reason to start with other pieces of a piecemeal universe and try to get gravity to emerge. I absolutely reject the idea that the universe is made of "information", for reasons I have detailed elsewhere [basically, information is always based on 'structure' and is always 'contextual'].
We have already discussed whether 10^-48 meter is a real limit or simply a consequence of the limited precision of the particular experiment. I tend to believe there is no limit, while you seem to interpret it as a 'new' value for the Planck length. We will come to different conclusions based upon this key interpretation.
You say you do not believe in singularities. One singularity at the 'creation' of the universe does not bother me. In fact I kinda feel it's appropriate to the occasion.
As for telekinesis, that is a more complicated issue, having to do with both 'range' and 'focus' of the consciousness field, as well as other aspects. I certainly do not believe that the 'magician-like' display of telekinesis is very likely to arise from my theory.
It's clear that our theories diverge at certain points, as do our theories from others' theories. For this reason I continually stress the point that all of our theories should first match known physics [of course!] but then the proper test of any theory *must* be to explain current known anomalies that are not explained by today's theories and also, if possible, to predict new phenomena.
thanks for continuing to think free...
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 20:01 GMT
You know the consciousness is not a thing We search but a thing we apply simply.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 23:33 GMT
Steve,
Consciousness is not a thing, but when we apply it (by act of will) we apply it to the physical universe-- 'lift your arm', 'type a comment', etc, and when we 'catch a ball', or 'read a comment' we are aware of physical reality. What is being discussed is how consciousness interacts with or interfaces to physical reality. Those commenting here seem to assume that consciousness is fundamental, not an artifact that did not exist until material 'Lego blocks' were arranged in the proper order at which time 'awareness' and 'will' "emerged". There are others who believe consciousness to be an illusion, but thankfully they aren't posting here.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 17:39 GMT
Edwin,
Interesting but I rest on my opinion, the consciousness is in evolution. It is not necessary to loose time for its research, in fact we apply it simply. And more we are conscient more we evolve simply. The deterministic observations help for a real contemplation of creations around and more we can see this universal sphere, more we are conscient of our pure reality. It doesn't exist equations for consciousness but applications. The truths help for a real contemplation of our polarizations around us. I agree that said when you say that consciousness is foundamental. I think it's an autonomy system of evolution.....this consciousness evolves. In all case, you speak very well about this consciousness, and yours works are relevant. But can we invent an equation??, indeed when we see the numbers of superimposings more the evolution.Wawww it is complex.Have you seen this immensity of our universal sphere??? already the personnal consciousness is complex.You imagine on Earth more the animals and more the others galaxies ??? wawww in all case if a number exists for the consciousness, this number increases like mass. But it is so incredibly important this number if we consider all "consciousness lifes" inside the universe. This sphere for me.
In all case it is a system in optimization, improvement,...spherization.
ps it could be cool if you come on APS also.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
If you want to truly and fundamentally extend physical understanding in and with time, be prepared, as I have done, to spend the enormous amount of TIME
that necessarily goes hand-in-hand in doing so. It's not nearly as easy as you all generally think it is.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Inertial and gravitational equivalency depends upon space being both, and equally, visible and invisible. Indeed, ultimately, vision and gravity are not otherwise possible.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
See the black/inertial space of the eye/vision? See the visible ground at the feet (involving gravity)? Does this mean nothing to you all?
I have fundamentally unified physics in/as dream experience? See why/how I have shown FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency/balancing in dreams?
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
Hello all,
It's an interesting thread which harps back to the very fundamentals of our pre-conceptions. It should be remembered that 'field theory' isn't a work of the imagination, it's the result of Newton's acceptance of an equation for planetary motion without a mechanism. This lack of a mechanism is paramount in understanding the problems that modern science has in defining the concepts of matter and gravity. If the known forces are to be united, then it's philosophically only possible if the gravity force is anisotropic, due to the others being clearly anisotropic. Newton left his theory hanging without a mechanism which implies isotropic gravitational effects from a known body. Put in a mechanism which makes intuitive sense and you should come up with a common sense solution which just *looks* isotropic for everyday matter.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
I just came across this 3D simulation model showing the vast scale of the universe, see here:
A breathtaking view highlighting the vast scope of our universe and the number of stars within it. A similar simulation model of the quantum world is needed imo. Nothing else will surfice.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Instantaneity demonstrates that larger and smaller space are ultimately entwined in a balanced fashion. This indicates fundamental/balanced force/energy, including a balance between visible and invisible. I have demonstrated the full significance of this in dreams.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 15:41 GMT
Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space -- this is a most fundamental definition of gravity.
Fundamentally, instantaneity ultimately demonstrates that Einstein's theory of gravity is fundamentally limited and incomplete. I have proven it. Again, we originate at/from the center of the human body.
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear All,
Singularity or I gives mass to everything. We will always find what we seek eventually as I or singularity creates it for us.
There is absolutely nothing but singularity or I and this is the
absolute truth.
Any where we go in the universe or multiverse we will definitely find I or singularity becuase I is in the heart of everything.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 00:47 GMT
See the black/inertial space of the eye/vision? See the visible ground at the feet (involving gravity)? Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space. Gravity, visible and invisible, is key to distance in/of space.
Now, see why/how I have shown FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency/balancing in dreams? Space is then equally (and it is both) invisible and visible.
I have fundamentally unified physics in/as dream experience. Keep an eye on the next issue of Physics Today for the full story. I am betting that this all, and more, is going to get published there.
Instantaneity demonstrates that larger and smaller space are ultimately entwined in a balanced fashion. This indicates fundamental/balanced force/energy, including a balance between visible and invisible. I have demonstrated the full significance of this in dreams as well.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 03:50 GMT
The Higg's idea has to do with saving the standard theory by introducing mass and gravity into it adhoc. I think that:
Newton did not know that the speed of light had a limit that would affect bodies with mass even within our solar system. I think that if he had known that that he would have quickly adjusted his theory of gravity, and, that it would not have included concepts such as space and time are curved. I think that the way he would have approached the problem would be to rely heavily on empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is about patterns in changes of velocity. Neither space nor time have been experimented on and observed to undergo changes of velocity.
I think he might have been motivated to re-examine his own equation f=ma. I say this because knowing mass is the key to understanding gravity. I think he might have felt that since he began with f=ma (f=dP/dt wasn't intended for relativistic purpose) that he would return to the equation for re-evaluation.
I think Newton was the best. He has been surpassed theoretically, but I do not think he has been surpassed in reality. He is not here to prove that he could have led us in a far better direction for explaining gravity. But, my own approach to theoretical physics is influenced greatly by him. The Einstein model, for me, is not empirically based.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
My message above should have begun with the words "I think!" I respect true theoretical physicists for their high level of educational achievement and in many cases originality beyond that. I am not a physicist, but, I do mean what I said in that message. Any coreections by physicists are welcome.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 13:38 GMT
The physical modelling of the three quarks in relation to one another has yet to be achieved in order to understand the concepts of matter and gravity. Crystal-like arrangements of quarks leads to the additional effects of the magnetic and electric force imo. The only really useful thing I remember from my classical education was that these are right angles to one another. This implies that the quarks are in a configuration which are at right angles to one another. Why does no-one try to model the physical configuration of the proton and neutron? Why do modern particle physicists only talk about GeV's? Their language has become a babble of their own making.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
Can Neutron Stars Crush Neutrons into Cubes? (Aug 16 2011). Just the kind of thing I was talking about earlier.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Alan,
You ask, "Why does no-one try to model the physical configuration of the proton and neutron?"
Physicists do attempt this using Lattice-QCD as I remarked above. Their models are almost ridiculously simple in concept, but their idea of QCD nevertheless leads to incredibly complex calculations that typically achieve only one or two place agreement with experiment.
I have a much different model in my book "The Chromodynamics War", but it is far outside of the current theory and has very few people who take it seriously. I am hoping that when the Higgs fails to show my model may attract more interest, but based on experiences at FQXi I am not optimistic. One must be inside the tent to be taken seriously.
As I pointed out in an earlier remark on this thread, there are a number of significant anomalies having to do with these simplest nucleons (proton and neutron) that are completely unexplained in QCD. These failures are simply attributed to 'complexity' of QCD and ignored, for the most part.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Edwin,
Thank you for your response to my question. I've just read about QCD in more detail (Getting Your Quarks In A Row - American Scientist) and agreed with everything that I read until this sentence: "That's not the way real spacetime is constructed, but the fiction turns out to be useful in getting answers from QCD". Oh-em-gee, here we again. The religious dogma of a spacetime continuum as the accepted reality of the day has left common sense at the front door. This is exactly what my whole 'new physics' is about. The simple concept that a graviton model fits with QCD like a glove and that spacetime never will. The blinkered nature of mainstream physics thinkers is astounding. Are you able to suspend belief in a spacetime continuum to comprehend where I'm heading with this Edwin? Or are you so entrenched in your own doctrine that the words I write appear to you as the babble of a babbler?
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Edwin,
I have a solution for the flyby anomaly you talked about earlier i.e. the metastable metallic hydrogen (MSMH) comets with supermagnetism which sink to the Earth's core. This also has the potential to resolve the anomaly of Mercury's precession and make the notion of space-time obsolete. Mercury is knwown to be very dense compared to the other rocky planets. I propose that this due to a high concentration of MSMH dark matter comet debris, due it's highly eccentric orbit and proximity to the Sun. The diagram attached was made before I re-read the data about the planet. I originally had the idea of a thicker stiffer crust lodging the dark matter in a less concentrated arrangement. This still might be a factor due to Mercury estimated to a have a crust 100-300km thick. Earth's thickness of the crust varies: averaging 6 km under the oceans and 30–50 km on the continents. This implies that Mercury could indeed have a surround of small to medium sized dark matter comet core buried in it's crust.
Talking to myself I know
Alan
attachments:
MercuryPebbledashCrust.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 12:57 GMT
Note to self:
The MSMH within Mercury's thick crust would have a much more random orientation (similar to a magnetic N-S) then dark matter rocks which are in close proximity to one another within the Earth's core.
attachments:
MercuryPebbledashmishmash.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
Note to cryptic self:
The east-west alignment of both of Earth's current sinking dm comet effects needs careful consideration.
Wikipedia:
Mercury has the most eccentric orbit of all the planets; its eccentricity is 0.21 with its distance from the Sun ranging from 46 to 70 million kilometers. It takes 88 days to complete an orbit. The diagram on the right illustrates the effects of the eccentricity, showing Mercury’s orbit overlaid with a circular orbit having the same semi-major axis. The higher velocity of the planet when it is near perihelion is clear from the greater distance it covers in each 5-day interval. The size of the spheres, inversely proportional to their distance from the Sun, is used to illustrate the varying heliocentric distance. This varying distance to the Sun, combined with a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance of the planet’s rotation around its axis, result in complex variations of the surface temperature.[18] This resonance makes a single day on Mercury last exactly two Mercury years, or about 176 Earth days.[73]
Mercury’s orbit is inclined by 7 degrees to the plane of Earth’s orbit (the ecliptic), as shown in the diagram on the right. As a result, transits of Mercury across the face of the Sun can only occur when the planet is crossing the plane of the ecliptic at the time it lies between the Earth and the Sun. This occurs about every seven years on average.[74]
attachments:
Mercurys_orbital_resonance.png,
ThePlanets_Orbits_Mercury_PolarView.png
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Unity in variety is fundamental to beauty and unification in physics, and this includes:
Balance and completeness.
Combine and include opposites.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:01 GMT
Instantaneity depends upon combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space, and this involves fundamental force/energy. This means equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity, and balanced attraction and repulsion.
Newton and Einstein never explained variety in unity, and they never explained instantaneity, and they never truly and fundamentally explained inertial and gravitational equivalency.
F=ma (at bottom) is constant force/energy in keeping with everything in this post, and it fundamentally demonstrates equivalent inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration. (F=ma ultimately demonstrates balanced attraction and repulsion with gravity and inertia both at half strength/force in dreams.)
I showed that dreams have everything in this post, AND that they are a linked center of body experience. Get it? I have truly unified physics.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
By generally and fundamentally averaging (and controlling) for motion/mobility like this, we have instantaneity and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing -- (see my last post).
I have fundamentally unified physics -- gravity, inertia, electromagnetism, observer/observed, F=ma.
I have shown space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy. Note the colors in dreams too.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
Note the semi-immobility in dreams and that the BALANCED force/energy of gravity and inertia therein is HALF of the feeling on your feet while standing. FACT.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
Half gravity is consistent with semi-immobilized. Full gravity is full mobility. Are you seeing how this all comes together so brilliantly?
Like it or not, that doesn't matter. What matters -- and it matters alot -- is that it is WAY too much to ignore. Read my prior posts please.
FQXi.org -- Yopu need to do something. Seriously, are you alive?
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
FQXi.org -- why do you refuse to acknowledge my unification? Respond.
Your credibility is seriously in question here. That is clear.
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear All,
For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, - Sir Isaac Newton
there is also inaction at the point of their interaction.
Universal I or singularity "is" that point of inaction.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Wow, finally, some excellent wisdom. Exactly what I have proven. Combine, balance, and include opposites. Inertial and gravitational equivalency is at the heart of this. Life is at the heart of this. Unity in variety. Growth is at the heart of this. Dreams, ultimately, are at the heart of this. The center of the body is at the heart of this. I am at the heart of this.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 02:05 GMT
The discoveries of experimental physicsts have nothing to do with describing the nature of God. No particle is 'Thee' God particle. Either all particles are God particles or none are. I do not know about the nature of the original cause of this universe, but, neither do physicists, especially theoretical physicists. Theory is a guessing game. It relies heavily upon inventing causes and putting those invented causes into equations.
Those equations should and do begin by reflecting patterns empirical evidence; however, theorists insist on adding inventions of the mind into explanations about reality. Those inventions are forced into equations through the medium of units. If the 'causes' are artificial, as they always are in theories, they take theory further and further away from reality. So, now we end up with the opportunity to discover the Higg's particle. The Higg's particle is not predicted by theory. It is needed to save theory.
If the Higg's particle proves to be a part of empirical evidence, not theoretical interpretation, then we have something concrete. However, the physicists who conduct the experiments are so steeped in theory, I don't know yet how to react should they say that the Higg's particle has been found. My own, non-professional, opinion is that it will be nothing other than a photon. Anyone, especially those with PHDs are invited to offer corrections to this message.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
Quoting from the article:
"... Newton's model of time, "passing equably without relation to anything external," is incorrect. ..."
This is written by William Orem; however, since I am looking for responses, I direct it to any interested parties. Why does the above description demonstrate that Newton's model is incorrect? Is this a statement merely about the belief of the author in the correctness of Relativity Theory?
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 20:40 GMT
Well looks like there is no interest. So before closing down this question, I will give my own opinion: Newton was correct about time and Einstein was not. There is nothing in empirical evidence to support the notion of time dilation.
James
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 18:53 GMT
Einstein's theory of gravity fails to fundamentally balance gravity and inertia. Truly balanced/equivalent inertia and gravity fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion in keeping with instantaneity and space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible. Instantaneity involves combining, balancing, and including larger and smaller space as the same space in accordance with fundamental force/energy. I showed all of this in/as dream experience. Inertia and gravity are both at half strength/force in dreams.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible is consistent with instantaneity and the combining, balancing, and including of larger and smaller space as the same space in accordance with fundamental force/energy. Accordingly, inertia and gravity are both at half strength/force in dreams.
Dreams meet the actual and theoretical requirements of unifying life, thought, and physics.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
Is the goal of modern physics the conversion of natural sensory experience into pure energy and into what is more inanimate? Someone tell me what the legitimate goal of modern physics is. Changing/reducing experience and people in order to gain profits and money? Technology (television, atomic bombs) is a destructive/reducing power. We are becoming like the babies in the inanimate matrix.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
Did you know that the world of experience (in many/various forms) as an unnatural creation of thought is an inanimate nightmare that is literally consuming us and making us more inanimate? Many of you physicists are blind.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 15:17 GMT
Well, those data spikes seem to be fading into the background.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
On another blog, in response to the Lepton-Photon conference beginning today Robert L. Oldershaw posted the following: 22 Aug 2011
For those who have been predicting all along that the LHC would find:
No string/brane exotica,
No sparticles,
No SUSY,
No WIMPS,
No extra-dimensions,
No mini-black holes,
No Randall-Sundrum gravitons,
No greased pig Higgsy,
Nothing beyond the pre-LHC standard model,
it certainly could be quite a day, indeed, robustly, landscapeably so.
Note that we will not be booking spots on the Colbert Report, or going to fancy conferences to share fantasies. No, we will be studying nature and doing our best to ignore the hyped pseudo-science that dominated particle physics for decades.
RLO - Discrete Fractal Cosmology
It may or may not be premature, but I certainly share the feeling.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Could this mean that a Higgs particle is not be found? If so, do you think the physics community will abandon a "particle-centric" strategy and try another approach?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 02:15 GMT
If the microcosm is this misunderstood, how sure are the theories of the macrocosm?
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear Jason and John,
Again, quoting Robert L Oldershaw:
"One or more fundamental assumptions at the heart of particle physics must be egregiously wrong. This is why we have the vacuum energy density crisis, and the incompatibility between GR and QM. Time for new ideas?"
...
But my bet is that those wedded to their theories will simply retain their ideas and look for some Higgs 'alternative' mechanism instead of realizing that a theory with 28 parameters to be fitted to data and no explanation for mass and no predictive power and many unexplained anomalies is simply nonsense and should be replaced by a theory based on new concepts that do not suffer these faults. It's simply human nature. There's the tremendous investment that's been made. They can't throw it away!
Nevertheless, with no Higgs and no SUSY, no WIMPs and none of the other nonsense it will become harder and harder to justify doing things "the way we've always done them". What is the establishment about if not the established way of doing things?
Taking advantage of the 'audit trail' nature of FQXi, I predict, based on my theory, that no new physics will show up at the LHC.
When no new physics shows up at the LHC, then the claim will be that it occurs only at higher energies (our theories demand it!) and the clamor will begin for a new bigger collider. Lot's of luck with that.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 09:34 GMT
Here's a relevant article I've just read
Hints fade of elusive physics 'God particle'I'm also holding out for the "'audit trail' nature of FQXi" and believe that the metastable metallic hydrogen (MSMH) as dark matter comet cores will prevail and overshadow your own contribitions Edwin. Let battle commence
Alan
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 09:52 GMT
Edwin, Alan,
" the clamor will begin for a new bigger collider."
Would epicycles have lasted for 1500+ years, if western civilization not gone dark for 1000 of them? I'm being pessimistic, but the coming economic implosion might serve to lock the current model in place, or it might serve as catalyst for change in many fields. Time will tell.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT
I predict that the physics community will cling to the idea of a Higgs boson until there last gasps. It will take half a century of aimless wandering amidst the wreckage of broken theories. Many decades after we are all gone, a spark of new physics will burn. It will lead to gravity field generators, non conserved energy transactions with the quantum vacuum, and new technologies that will break free of the shackles of entropy and quantum randomness. Future generations will discover what lies beneath the Uncertainty Principle.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
It won't take that long, surely. A year or two and things will really start to change imo
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 13:04 GMT
I would not compose a requiem for the Higgs particle yet. The LHC has recorded only about .1% of the data it is slated to record, beam luminosity is still not near the expected maximum and it is running at half power. However, within the MSSM we are at energy sufficient to observe the Higgs. The 8 components of the Higgs field have 3 of those field degrees of freedom absorbed into Z and...
view entire post
I would not compose a requiem for the Higgs particle yet. The LHC has recorded only about .1% of the data it is slated to record, beam luminosity is still not near the expected maximum and it is running at half power. However, within the MSSM we are at energy sufficient to observe the Higgs. The 8 components of the Higgs field have 3 of those field degrees of freedom absorbed into Z and W^{+/-}, and the remaining 5 components go into a neutral light Higgs, 2 charged Higgs at a higher mass Higgs and a pseudoscalar Higgs. We should have gotten the light Higgs by now, and there is a bit of a teaser in the data at the 140GeV range. However, this is far from the unit peak we might expect if the Higgs were being generated at this energy. The 140GeV is far below threshold of production for sqrt{s} = 7TeV.
I have for a long time said that we have a problem with the vacuum, and in particular with how we pack lots of energy and degrees of freedom into it. Those 8 Higgs degrees of freedom are really 8 sets of degrees of freedom, where each set contains many degrees of freedom over a huge range of momentum. Since those callow years in grad school I thought that we might have an aether problem. This has been followed up with the recent find that there is no dispersion of light over cosmological distances, from the FERMI and more recently the INTEGRAL data. So spatial quantum fluctuations do not manifest themselves in ways that many physicists think they do, or they may be absent altogether.
This idea I have had for some time is that what symmetry is broken at low energy is conformal symmetry. Spacetime has conformal symmetry if there are no sources of gravitation. The vacuum solutions have pure Weyl curvature. The de Sitter spacetime is conformal equivalent to flat spacetime. The space is flat, but it has an expanding foliation with respect to time. This expansion is a time dependent conformal transformation. The anti de Sitter spacetime in n dimensions, AdS_n, is equivalent to a conformal field theory of one dimension lower CFT_{n-1} on the boundary of the AdS_n that is conformally flat. I attach an image of the Poincare half plane, where the boundary represents the space of the universe. The AdS_n is where the graviton exists, and this quantum gravity is equivalent to a conformal gauge theory on the boundary. This boundary in higher dimensions is conformally flat. However, if conformal symmetry is broken the boundary can be thought of as deformed, or where it “dips into” where the AdS space is. Therefore we get the local appearance of gravity in the spacetime of the universe.
This connects in a way to the possible nature of time. Time may be a one dimensional aspect of reality that reflects how gravitational degrees of freedom transform. In that setting time is something akin to a one dimensional communication channel, or a form of transmission line. It is then possible that time is a parameterization of a quantum error correction code for the universe.
Jacob Bekenstein and Avraham May demonstrated how black holes are one dimensional channels of quantum information back in 2001. Ashoke Sen demonstrated something similar to this. An anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime of dimension n is equivalent to a conformal field theory of dimension n-1. The isometries of the AdS spacetime are equivalent to the conformal symmetries of a conformal field theory (CFT) on the boundary. The near horizon condition for a black hole in an AdS spacetime is AdS_2xS^{n-2}, where S^{n-2} is a sphere or dimension n – 2. The AdS_2 is a hyperbolic spacetime with a structure similar to the Escher prints of tessellated disks called circle limits, or the Poincare half-plane I attach. The boundary of this spacetime is CFT_1, in one dimension, where the isometries of this space are the group of conformal quantum mechanics. The group is the set of diffeomorphisms of the circle (which bounds the AdS_2 disk) and this defines the set of bosonic string states. The AdS_2 is then equivalent to a circle group on CFT_1 ~ S^1xS^0 (where this is a generalization of CFT_n ~ S^1xR^{n-1}) and the S^0 defines two points. These two points turn out to be dual states for the Hartle-Hawking vacuum (HHV). The HHV comes from their seminal paper in 1984 on the wave function of the universe.
So I think something far more subtle is going on with the mechanism we have attributed to the Higgs particle. There are Bogoliubov coefficients involves which give Landau-Ginsburg potential interactions that are “Higgs-like.” I do not know if a Higgs particle per se can be derived from this. However, some data of late, the no Lorentz violations from spacetime fluctuations, low bounds on dipole structure of electric charge of electron, and now the paucity of a signal for the Higgs particle does suggest that nature is telling us something very different from what we have been thinking.
As a final note, there is no reason to think that any of this is going to lead to exotic technologies such as faster than light travel.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
T H Ray replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 13:40 GMT
Eloquent and compact, Lawrence. I remember we discussed the Bekenstein-Mayo "Black holes are 1-dimensional" result back in the first essay on time competition. (My essay leads off with it.) I agree there's a lot of physics to be mined from that extreme boundary.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT
Lawrence,
Not to be presumptuous, but how far are you willing to deconstruct what you have spent a lifetime immersed in, in order to examine all possible solutions? You have spent your life in a good faith effort to understand the nature of reality and to do that have been joined in a group effort, extending over many generations. What if those conceptual errors creating the dilemma facing physics today are buried so far down that not only the last few decades might be off track, but the fissures are going down into conceptual bedrock? It's like a dissident Catholic priest might question the current direction of the church, while the notion of questioning the top down spirituality of monotheism is intellectually impossible, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that the excesses of the church might not ultimately be predicated in that very top down paternalism on which that theology is based.
I tend to question the possibility of a Higgs because it would seem a particle that conferred mass would not be very elusive. Isn't mass really just an effect of inertia and inertia a manifestation of equilibrium? Wouldn't that imply some field effect of the vacuum? In that case, are we not bumping up against the limits of what can be isolated and measured and can only be inferred? Does that big old void exist, or is it really only just things that bump into one another?
What really is the nature of space? Is it created by everything bursting from the singularity, or is that singularity our attempt to declare a centerpoint to our universal coordinate system?
It seems likely the possible failure to find a basic, standard model Higgs is only going to lead to ever more convoluted math, because those with the most at stake are certainly not going to question foundational premises, any more than Central Banks would question the efficacy of relaxing credit in the face of economic uncertainty. In both cases, that doesn't preclude the possibility of deeper problems, only defines the limits of the tools we have to deal with them.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
The manifestation that links center of body experience is the true and fundamental equivalency of inertia and gravity, as I have shown. We all do originate and grow at/from the center of the human body, correct? Dreams fundamentally and truly unify gravity and inertia. I showed this definitively.
Many of you are like idiots who repeatedly slam their heads against a wall that is not going to give way. Stop the rampant lies in physics please.
My new book is coming out soon, and it is going to expose many of the rampant lies, idiotic ideas, and distortions/misrepresentations in modern physics
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
The Higgs field and boson is supposed to cause mass to exist. If we really understood what was causing mass, wouldn't we be able to explain, in a logically evident way, inertia and the nature of space-time? I've already suggested that all quantities of mass are interconnected with fibers of space-time, in such a way that these fibers automatically hold c constant. These interconnecting fibers act like waveguides for photons of light. I would think that a Higgs field would look something like that.
It would be helpful to rethink the conceptual logic of the Higgs field. Does the concept of Higgs bosons make sense as a description of mass?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT
Jason the first 3 sentences make sense. Then you talk about fibers of space time.
IMHO Space time has to be created by the observer receiving the data to construct the appearance of things within it. There can't be an actual fiber of space time because the time dimension is just an artifact due to data transmission delay. Also a fiber is a thing and space-time is not. It is just the setting for the appearance of things. Rather than what -is- in its non space-time environment.
Inertia can be explained as being due to the total motion bodies or particles at all scales, which is not taken into account within the 3 dimensional structure of space-time.(Not a straight line but rotation, translation and scaling transformation, IMHO.) An object which obviously has continual motion when considered at the object-universal scale may appear to be stationary to an observer.
Whether it appears to be moving or stationary to an observer -altering that trajectory- through space requires force, fitting Newtons first law, and this explains inertia and momentum. A body with greater resistance to change of existent trajectory, has slower acceleration and its inertial mass will be said to be greater.
Gravitational mass can be explained as being due to the disturbance of the unseen environment of space due to the continual motion of all objects through it, even the ones that appear stationary. Not curvature of space-time itself (the setting for the appearance) but perturbation of the content of unobserved space surrounding existent bodies in continual motion.
The Higgs particle is only sought to complete the standard model.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 05:28 GMT
Hi Georgina,
G:"Also a fiber is a thing and space-time is not. It is just the setting for the appearance of things. Rather than what -is- in its non space-time environment."
A setting "is" a thing. You can't just ignore it, although most physicists do. That's why a Higgs boson point like particle doesn't make sense. You need a 1D "something" to interconnect mass A with mass B. If you don't agree, then consider these arguments.
1. Coulombs Law is the force equation between two charges that depends upon the "distance R between them".
2. Newtonian gravity has the same thing, a "distance R between them".
3. Why are black holes black? It's because light can't escape the strong gravity forces. But there is no way that gravity is being implemented by point particle gravitons because they would have to travel faster than c (vacuum). Gravity between two masses has to be implemented by a 1D line of "something" between the gravity source and anything within its graps.
I submit to you that these are lines of space-time. They permit photons to travel between emitter and observer.
The reason you don't like this explanation is because you are expecting such a "line" to be static and fixed (like a fiber optic cable). Obviously, they don't act like that. But to try to convince you that that jump into existence, allow a photon to go by, and then vanish, that probably sounds preposterous. But nothing else makes sense. These "fibers" or "lines" are space-time. They cause relativity to work, but are themselves beyond the constraints of relativity.
My apologies, but the laws of physics are do seem to be implemented by interconnecting fibers that appear and vanish just as quickly.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 09:55 GMT
Georgina, Jason,
Stuff moving about in space creates time. The only reason this is in question is because everyone insists on accepting the changing configuration as part of some fundamental geometric 'dimension" from one event to another, rather than seeing this as an effect of overall change. The present doesn't go anywhere. It's the events which coalesce out of all potential input and then disperse, ie. go from being in the "future" to being in the "past." Thus all "clocks" run relative to all effects influencing them.
So if we remove time from the category of fundamental, then we have to consider space as the essential "setting," not just something emerging from measurement. This setting is permeated by endless overlapping fields of radiation, but since its only attributes are infinity and absolute equilibrium, it is more judge than participant of the activity. The "vacuum" containing the "fluctuations."
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
Jason,
the setting for the reconstructed observed reality is not a thing. What is in space-time is not mass A and mass B but a reconstructed representation of A and B, which just have to be represented somewhere. They, A and B are not there and they are therefore not connected there and that there is not a thing. Whether produced by an organic brain or an artificial device. That there is not actually a there at all, other than in the abstract/theoretical /mathematical sense.
-Where- is the distance between them (A and B) Jason? Is it between the actual objects where they exist or between their reconstructions in simulated space-space time encoded in the electrical activity within my head? I hope you will say it is between them where they exist. Not in space-time then.
I don't accept a 1 D line is necessary for gravity when I have already said that it is IMHO an environmental effect, a perturbation of the environment within unobserved space (surrounding the objects) due to their continual motion through space. This means that inertial and gravitational mass have the same foundational origin. Which is the continual change of position of all objects through space. No space-time wires or Higgs fairy dust required.
Your presumption about my dislike of your space-time fibres is incorrect. I explained exactly why I dislike them in my previous post. There are no space-time fibers existing within the electrical activity inside a brain or artificial detector. The simulation of reality that is experienced or illustrated does not require them and the explanation of inertia does not require them.
If imagining interconnecting fibers helps you as an aid to comprehension then imagine them, but I see no reason to presume such things actually exists. You statement "But nothing else makes sense" is your personal veiwpoint. If you think that things are really, really going on in space-time and space-time is a vaccuum then something must pop into existence to permit transmission. But if things are actually really going on in unobserved space, not space-time, and it contains a medium and is not a void, then the medium for transmission is already existent and does not need to pop into and out of existence again when a photo requires transmission.
I have drawn a diagram myself of a mass threaded by multiple strings to attempt to illustrate gravity and the "direction" of movement but I do not for an instant believe that such strings actually exist.Like drawing arrows to represent the flow of water. The arrows do not actually exist but the effect that which they are attempting to illustrate does.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
John,
I agree that all that changing of position is also giving passage of time, as well as gravitational and inertial mass that I mentioned.
You talk about space being foundational. I must clarify exactly what space is foundational IMHO. As I said to Jason space-time is the setting for the reconstructed reality. The reconstruction can not be fitted into space alone because the data received has taken different lengths of time to arrive together.
As for what exists independently of observation it has to be in space alone because the time dimension is the transmission delay artifact. That artifact is irrelevant when what really, really exists is not built from received data like the simulated image reality, but just is. This explains why what -is- in space can not be fitted to a relative viewpoint of what was spread over time and space. The space in each case is not the same space. One of the spaces is really real the other only appears real.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 13:41 GMT
Lawrence,
You seem to be the right person to ask if I may. Why exactly *is* the LHC running at half power then? Is there a unknown problem? I have a hunch that it's due to an unexpected change in the earth tides, which I've read that the LHC accounts for. Is this something that you can tell me is definitely not a good possiblity?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Jason,
Consider what would be a most elemental state; Energy in space, be it quantum fluctuations, a final state of high entropy and nol usable energy, cold death of the universe, with all radiation evenly spread across it, etc.
In this state, there is effectively no time, because there are no quantifiable measures of change, but there is presumably some measurable level of energy, if there is any energy above absolute zero. Thus there would be temperature.
Now physics likes to correlate space and time as though they are one geometry, but why isn't there a similar correlation of temperature and space? One could even use ideal gas laws to say volume and temperature are the same, much as duration and distance are correlated, using the speed of light.
Basically what we have is energy permeating space, with time and temperature as measures of the energy. Sometimes that energy is coalescing into gravitational mass and sometimes it's doing the opposite; radiating away as fairly uniform light.
Space is neither being bent by gravity, or expanded by redshift of the light, because space has no physical attributes to bend, expand, shrink, etc.
Consider the idea that the universe expands: Why doesn't the speed of light increase as well? Presumably the expansion of space means it takes light longer to cross the same percentage of the universe, but the speed of light is a stable measure of space. That means recession would be an increased amount of stable space, not expanding space. Much as someone walking away from you does not create more space, but put what was in front of them, behind them.
Instead we have this idea that all space emerged from a point and more is created as it expands. To maintain this idea, some enormous patches have been added, such as inflation and dark energy. Could it be that redshift is simply an effect of light expanding out across ever greater amounts of space and the photons we measure are created by the process of measurement, not particles traveling directly from the source? Remember redshift is directly proportional to distance.
Yet anyone questioning Big Bang Theory is guaranteed to be branded a crackpot.
As Georgina points out, there is no "fabric of spacetime." There is that network of radiation/matter. Spacetime is just a model of our subjective intellectual perception of it.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
Jason,
The "fibers of space time" can be regarded upon also as the possible paralel universal "life lines", imagine all these "fibers" (not visible as material fibers but they are experienced by US as a whole Universe) intertwined together, (just another visual trick) becomes even a better idea as the bubbles we are used to imagine. Everybody follows his own fiber.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT
John,
GR and QM are an elephant with many different ways of looking at it. You said, "As Georgina points out, there is no "fabric of spacetime." There is that network of radiation/matter. Spacetime is just a model of our subjective intellectual perception of it. " It's not a fabric the way my jeans are a fabric. But the term "space-time" is really meant to convey the observation that SR and GR are correct. The speed of light c (vac) really is invariant for all observers. This is a neat trick. But it can't be done by relying upon 4D geometry; otherwise, I could move forward/backwards in time as easily as I move left or right. Time, ct, is not a real dimension.
Wilhelmus,
Every particle of matter is interconnected with every other particle of matter using threads of 1D space-time. You can't see the threads, which is good, otherwise everything would become tangled. Yet, you use these threads to "see" because light traverses them. Time dilation works between two objects moving relativistically wrt one another; photons are welcome to traverse between the two masses, but it's not requirement. However, there is still a time dilation between the two masses. Why is that? Time dilation is not caused by light. It's caused by something that interconnects the two masses.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
This thread generated a number of replies. I am going to try to cover them here
I suggested the problem involves the nature of time. I suggested something about AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 on the 1-dim boundary times Z_2. This may be thought of as time, where time is a sort of transmission line --- a one dimensional “wire,” or sequence of diode junctions which “process.” Space being complementary to...
view entire post
This thread generated a number of replies. I am going to try to cover them here
I suggested the problem involves the nature of time. I suggested something about AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 on the 1-dim boundary times Z_2. This may be thought of as time, where time is a sort of transmission line --- a one dimensional “wire,” or sequence of diode junctions which “process.” Space being complementary to time ΔtΔx = ħ, the quantum states on this one dimensional channel are dual to those corresponding to a 3-d space, which are the Hartle-Hawking states for the “wave function of the universe.” However, I think I will try to indicate more about this with more elementary arguments.
Time is involved with mass in the following way, which requires going back to the most basic notions of relativity. One of the things people do not realize is that we do in fact move at the speed of light. By just sitting in my chair with everything around me largely at rest relative to my position I am in fact traveling at the speed of light. So is everything else. In fact one reason nothing can travel faster than light is because nothing can travel slower than light. The only thing is that there are two different ways of traveling at the speed of light. We and everything with mass does it in one way. Light and massless particle do it another way.
Relativity is just a form of geometry. In flat spacetime there is a form of the Pythagorean Theorem. In ordinary space, such as planar geometry, the two legs of a right triangle of length x and y compute the distance of the hypotenuse h as
h^2 = x^2 + y^2.
In relativity if we consider just one spatial direction x and time t the corresponding equation is
s^2 = (ct)^2 – x^2.
This distance for 3 spatial directions (x, y, z) and time t is
s^2 = (ct)^2 – x^2 – y^2 – z^2
We consider just one spatial direction and we consider the case of a particle sitting at the origin x = 0. This means this particle is moving along the fourth dimension in this coordinate system at s^2 = (ct)^2. In fact it is moving at the speed of light! So by just sitting in one spot you are moving at the speed of light along this unseen fourth dimension we can only measure with a clock. This is why it is sometimes called a time axis.
Now let us consider the motion of that particle relative to our rest frame at x = 0. We set the x direction of this particle’s motion as x = vt. Plug this into s^2 = (ct)^2 – x^2 and we get
s^2 = (c^2 – v^2)t^2 = c^2(1 – β^2)t^2
The distance s is called the invariant interval, which is the length of the particle’s path as measured by a clock on that particle’s frame. This time is τ = s/c, and so the time on the particle’s clock and what we measure on our clock at x = 0 is then
τ^2 = (1 – β^2)t^2, β = v/c
This is the so called time dilation effect, for if we observed this clock on our frame we would see it compute time intervals Δτ (time’s between ticks) relative to ours Δt according to this formula with γ = 1/sqrt(1 – β^2). So assume Δt = 1second and we let β = .866, or that the particle is moving at 86.6% the speed of light relative to our frame at x = 0. Do the math! And you find that γ = 1/sqrt(1 – .75) = 2, and since Δτ = Δt/γ it is not hard to see that for every second our clock at x = 0 ticks the particle’s lock only ticks off .5 seconds.
Now what about the photon itself? We return to the equation above for the interval
s^2 = (c^2 – v^2)t^2 with v = c == > s^2 = (c^2 – c^2)t^2 = 0.
So there is no interval, or equivalently there is no distance associated with a photon path, where that distance would be measured by a clock on the photon’s frame. This is a null frame or a null path. The gamma factor above is infinite, or better said to be undefined as a division by zero. We observers at x = 0 can measure the photon to move at the speed of light, but there is no corresponding measure by any clock on the photon frame.
These are the two ways of moving at the speed of light. The first of these is called timelike, while the second is called lightlike. There is no way of performing a continuous transformation from one to the other. The blow up of the gamma factor is one main reason, which is that to achieve this it requires an infinite boost, where the Lorentz transformation for this does not have an inverse operation.
Now having made this introduction with basic special relativity, I now look at some quantum mechanical differences between timelike and and lightlike (or null) paths or geodesics in spacetime. I start with the Dirac equation,
iγ^μ∂_μψ – mψ = 0
where γ^μ are the Dirac matrices and the raised index is over the spacetime coordinates. The Dirac equation describes the quantum physics of a spin s = ħ/2 (spin ½) particle. The wave function is a two component spinor ψ = (ψ_A, ψ_A’) and the Dirac equation can be written as two Weyl equations with the spinor indices A and A’
i ∇^A_A’ ψ_A = (m/sqrt{2}) ψ_A’
i ∇^A’_A ψ_A’ = (m/sqrt{2}) ψ_A
which has an interesting interpretation. The mass acts as a sort of intertwining potential between ψ_A and ψ_A’, which are the conjugate pairs in the spinor. The potential is this mass, which flips the helicity of the spinor particle on a time δt ~ ħ/mc^2. This then flips the momentum direction and helicity of the particle around that time scale. If I multiply δt by c = speed of light I get δx ~ λ = ħ/mc, which is the Compton wavelength of a particle of mass m. For an electron this is about 10^{-12}cm. In a three dimensional perspective this is a spiral motion of a particle, where the potential defines a continuous transformation between the spinor components. If the mass is zero, then the two components never oscillate between each other.
There are some issues with parity, and the handedness of the neutrino. I can maybe get to that if questions are asked, but for brevity I will skip that.
I attach a picture of what this looks like. The zig-zag picture is of a mass-less particle on a sequence of null paths. These paths connect up so that on a much larger scale this appears as an electron with a mass at rest, or on a timelike path. The generalization to the helical path is intuitively clear. The particle is on a null path, eg parallel to a local light cone at each point, that bends around in a helix. Again on a large scale this particle would appear to be a massive particle on a time-like path. This is related to something called the zitterbewegung, with is “frantic motion” on a particle.
So there is some potential which induces this motion. We have thought of the Higgs particle as being this interaction. The mass of a Dirac particle is due to the coupling to the Higgs with a Lagrangian interaction term L_y = gψ-bar Hψ, called the Yukawa interaction. Yet we are finding a paucity of signal for the Higgs field. This then makes us suspect that the interaction is not this scalar type of interaction at all. It may then be more of a gauge type of interaction.
What sort of interaction might this be? Joy Christian has worked up some ideas which use geometric algebra. The construction is interesting, even if I have grave doubts about any classical substructure to QM. Further, there is a business in gravitation with the connection term having symmetry Γ^a_{ab} = Γ^a_{ba}, which is torsion free. Yet in principle there may be terms which are antisymmetric, Γ^a_{ab} = -Γ^a_{ba}, which are torsional components. A third ingredient is that the whole Higgs theory is really a particle version of superconductivity. The fermions are antisymmetric under interchange, and the occurrence of a BCS pairing gives bosonic properties with symmetric interchange. By replacing the connection indices with A and A’ spinor indices the torsional component of gravity is then a reflection of an underlying fermionic substructure to gravitation.
I could say more about this --- a whole lot more in fact, but it gets into AdS spacetimes and some of the stuff above. So I will leave it at this. If this is the case the Higgs field may then be replaced with a theory that is more in line with BCS superconductivity and quantum critical phase transitions.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
I forgot to attach the image file
attachments:
zitterbewegung.JPG
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 23:29 GMT
Hello Dr. Crowell,
Please forgive me; in my universe, I only get 15 minute breaks.
I liked the first several paragraphs of what you've said. I'll read the rest at lunch time. If objects like computers, dogs and planets can consist of Avagadros of atoms and molecules (which are point-like), then why can't space-time consist of Avagadros of transmission line "wires" in such a way that the wires themselves account for relativity, action-at-a-distance, and the separation dependence that shows up in Newtonian gravity, Coulomb's law, etc.? If you have enough of these "wires", and they tend to interconnect with massive objects (massive particles), then one should really be describing a Higgs field. Right?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:05 GMT
The quantum channel is one dimensional. Space is a sort of fiber bundle in a C* construction with this transmission line.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowley,
LC: "The quantum channel is one dimensional. Space is a sort of fiber bundle in a C* construction with this transmission line."
When I looked up fiber bundles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_bundle, it showed a picture of a cylindrical hairbrush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roundhairbrush.J
PG
LC: "The mass acts as a sort of intertwining potential between ψ_A and ψ_A’, which are the conjugate pairs in the spinor. The potential is this mass, which flips the helicity of the spinor particle on a time δt ~ ħ/mc^2. "
I have this picture in my mind that mass is an intertwining of wave-functions A and A'. I also hold to the idea that space-time is really a large quantity of 1D space-time "fibers" that also behave like wave-functions.
Am I picturing this wrong?
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 05:05 GMT
Everthing moves with the speed of light. an circular orbit around a star is perfectly symmetrical in spacetime, but an ellips is a cirkel with a certain angle in spacetime, the speed we notice does change, but in 4 dimensional spacetime it moves with the same 'speed'. we only see an intersection.
Interesting is the description of Roger Penrose of an electron. the description of an electron can be decomposed into two opposite particles the zig particle and the zag particle. Those zig and zag particles both move with the speed of light. but their overal speed is just the speed we notice. at the points the zig transforms in a zag particle and at the point a zag particle moves into a zig partigle the higgs particle interacts with them and in that manner giving 'mass' the the electron.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT
Hi Peter,
I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice this. Point particles that zig and zag still ignore the background, the space-time environment. Even superstring theory admits that the brane, which the string attaches to, may in turn be made out of more superstrings. Whatever theory or concept is used to explain the origin of mass, it MUST include the origin of the space-time background. Every physicists swears allegiance to a fundamental geometry. But geometry can't be fundamental. Interconnectedness has to be fundamental.
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Hello Jason,
To be true, I do not understand the problem of the origen of mass. I understand that particles within the Yang Mills model are described as massless particles. But because we notice that particles show inertia and behave under gravity, we conclude that they have mass. or because of the equality equations of mass and energy.
Maybe the problem is that not the particles ignore the background, but that we, the model makers, ignore the background. It is already difficult to make a relativistic quantum theory. So it is more difficult to bring in general relativity.
To visualise this. We can imagine a light cone. Particles that move with the speed of light are on the cone, but particles that have mass don't. So You may think that Lawrence is wrong when he says that all particles move with the speed of light.
I Think that the problem is that it is hard to visualize the gravitational effects. but just as the speed of light is a boundary, the gravitational constant is also a boundary. There are also gravitational cones. While the speed of light is the absolute ratio of space and time, the gravitational constant can be seen as the absolute ratio of space and mass. (or better the product of space and (speed of light squared)). So there is not just a single light cone but a multi dimensional cone composed of the speed of light together with the cones produced of the gravitational constant.
In 4 dimensional spacetime the light cone is simple, to view it more correctly the boundary is a series of expanding sphere's. When we introduce the gravitational constant with this together with energymomentum (as an equivalent of 4 dimensional spacetime) we have a more complete picture.
So in this picture it is a more dimensional sphere composed of all kinds of combinations of the gravitational constant together with the light constant. And it is more likely that the dimensions are not just the 8 dimensions above, but 8 more dimensions, 16 in total.
I think that some of the intersections give us the particles that have mass.
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Forget the last sentence in my previous reply.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
Hi Peter,
The invariance of c that tells us that a 3D coordinate system is incorrect. Everyone knows about the dogma of 4D space-time. But causality tells us that 4D space-time is incorrect. If I can move left/right/forward/back/up/down without a causality problem, then why can't I go back in time? Because time ct is not a real dimension.
We know that GR and SR are correct; what we don't know is what causes it. My fish will tell you that there tank contains about 3 cubic feet of water. But they don't know that water is made out of Avagadros of H2O molecules. Light cones suffer from the misconception that time is a real dimension. The simplest explanation, to me, is that all massive particles are interconnected with 1D fibers of space-time. When Avagadros of these fibers of space-time fill a volume of space, it looks like flat space-time geometry. These space-time fibers are obligated to transmit light at c, particularly c = wavelength*frequency.
If you do it this way, then Newtonian gravity and coulomb's law, which are dependent upon the distance between two charges, make sense because the distance between them is filled with space-time fibers (bundles of fibers).
Doing it this way, we're back to 3D space, which is what we observe. These space-time fibers interweave into massive particles. Furthermore, QM and GR are unified because these space-time threads are also describable with wave-functions.
If anyone is interested, I can tell you how FTL is possible. A large volume of these space-time fibers (the volume of your spaceship) constitutes a "particle" within a hyperspace.
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
"The invariance of c that tells us that a 3D coordinate system is incorrect."
Does it?
".. causality tells us that 4D space-time is incorrect."
The different polarizations of the photon and the resulting static magnetic and static electric properties prove otherwise. The polarizations aren't just in space but also in time.
And as I said before, the creation and annihilation of an electron pair, can be seen acording to feynmann as a single electron cycling back and forward in time.
"We know that GR and SR are correct; what we don't know is what causes it."
There is a difference between reason and cause. I think you mean that whe don't know what the reason is. Aristotle tried to explain the nature of matter. but since early scientists like Newton, the description of physicall processes is the only thing we can say about nature.
"Light cones suffer from the misconception that time is a real dimension."
What is your definition of a "real dimension"?
"The simplest explanation, to me, is that all massive particles are interconnected with 1D fibers of space-time. When Avagadros of these fibers of space-time fill a volume of space, it looks like flat space-time geometry. These space-time fibers are obligated to transmit light at c, particularly c = wavelength*frequency."
Why make the model of spacetime so difficult? Is there something your theory can explain more correctly then Minkowski's spacetime can do? And in your model you are ignoring the gravitational constant.
report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
FRANKLY pETER YOU MAKE WHAT ALSO THERE WITH rAY AND lISI? ....ALL IS FALSE AND ALL IS SIMPLY A BUSINESS.
BE RATIONAL PLEASE WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT SPHERES. MY THEORY IS NOT A GAME OK ???
Anybody spoke about Spheres and now they use it all and of course them they have prizes and jobs, like Milnor in maths or joy and also who after ....it is very sad all that. I am disdusted. It is ironic and me of course I am stolen, critized, disgusted is a weak word. It is that the usa ? Frankly it is so incredible. The business is an under sciences.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 11:45 GMT
Steve,
John MIlnor stole your sphere idea 20 years before you were born? The copyright laws must be rewritten to account for time travel! ;-)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
What ??? mY SPHERES IDEAS??? You are a styealer Tom, with a team of businessmen and you shall loose here on Erath or after it is not a problem for me because my faith will eat you , you and your stealers friends, don't forget my name Tomy .Be sure and now when you will sleep, open your mind and you shall see me in your dreams with GOD.Take me for a crazzy , and you shall see poor looser frustrated and liking monney. My spheres Ideas. MY THEORY OF SPHERIZATION YES don't confound a simple work of maths with hyper spheres and my Theory ok , now you are going to respect me you shall see with this time like you say.You shall see what is really the time evolution. And your spheres to you ahahaha We dream in live with Tom the stealer and its friends frustrated by lack of monney and recognizing. You are what like man in fact , you and your friends , cow boys and me an Indians from America it is that,you want my head, and my prizes and my works it is that.Don't forget my name and don't forget time ok looser you have already win here on Earth and after and for ever even, you want the real meaning of this entropy and the real meaning of the faith and the well in this universe and its judgement, be sure you shall understand what is its meaning here or after, if I am dead or alive,you want really understand my theory of spherization, be sure you shall understand.
Steve.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Friends,
Aristotle built a Universe on spheres long before any of us were born.
Steve - You do not own a monopoly on spheres. I am impressed with Peter's ideas, and I think you should be nicer to your Dutch neighbor.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
Lighten up, Steve. No one is trying to get anything over on you.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 12:34 GMT
You do not respect me and my works, you do not recognize the generality of my Theory of spherization, I am the fisrt who speaks about our Universe like a sphere, I am the fist who links all these things , I am the first who unifies the quantum spheres with cosmological spheres inside an universal sphere and a central main, sphere where all turns around. If now you do not respect that. It is that there is a big problem. I don't understand you since I am here on this platform, anybody really respects my works here in fact.It is just a platform for what, for a game of vanity of pseudo sciences or What???? I can understand that my theory is revolutionary and links all but frankly I did not wait this comportment in fact.I am surprised in fact since several years now.
Tom and your spheres model ? You want a prize also or what?
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 12:58 GMT
Steve,
To get respect, give respect. As Ray explained, philosophers have been describing the universe as a sphere since at least the ancient Greeks. This is very little related to modern topology, however, in which the sphere is generalized to S^n Euclidean dimensions, by well understood methods. If you dispute these methods, feel free to do so, and explain why. If you agree with those methods, feel free to explain how your theory fits.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:01 GMT
I loose time with you, now good road , if you are not able to accept my discovery, then you are 1 jealous or 2 a businessman 3 a stealer ,or 4 you do not understand the generality.in the 3 your vanity eats you simply. Since I am here on this platform never you have recognized my works just because you and your friends are on an other wave lenght. Not spherical in all case!!!Never I will have imagined that form you and your friends. Really , it is sad all that.And me who loves your country.You do not give a positive vue with your comportments.
N euclidian spheres now and after what ???? Come on APS linkedin if you are a man.
They use all the spheres now but in fact they do not understand my theory, ironical no??
ps Milnor has won this year my friend ok and now if the system of the sciences community is like that, wawww where are we going????I can't accept that even with the biggest vanities of people.Never!!!! It is very sad all that.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"By just sitting in my chair with everything around me largely at rest relative to my position I am in fact traveling at the speed of light. So is everything else. In fact one reason nothing can travel faster than light is because nothing can travel slower than light. The only thing is that there are two different ways of traveling at the speed of light. We and everything with mass does it in one way. Light and massless particle do it another way."
When you use the word 'fact' I assume there is empirical evidence to support it. What is the empirical evidence that says we are moving at the speed of light?
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:04 GMT
Maybe the word fact is a bit strong. However, the supporting evidence for this is the huge amount of empirical support for relativity.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:05 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
Thank you for your informative response.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
Lawrence,
After suggesting that "something about AdS_2 ~ CFT_1 on the 1-dim boundary times Z_2. [...] may be thought of as time, where time is a sort of transmission line --- a one dimensional "wire," or sequence of diode junctions which "process"..., you then suggest that dtdx = h and remark upon the "wavefunction of the universe".
You then claim "Time is involved with mass" in a way that supports your statement that "by just sitting in one spot you are moving at the speed of light...".
I actually do follow your exposition and find it fascinating. For months now you have been openly willing to admit the problems facing physics. You have said, in essence, that "the deeper we probe quantum mechanics, the weirder it gets." You also seem willing to question the nature of the vacuum, in light of 120 orders of magnitude less energy than QED calculated. And with the recent INTEGRAL dispersion results you now say:
"So spatial quantum fluctuations do not manifest themselves in ways that many physicists think they do, or they may be absent altogether."
If I interpret this correctly, you seem to be questioning even the existence of 'virtual particles', which is the bedrock of QED. I am encouraged by your statement that "some data of late, the no Lorentz violations from spacetime fluctuations, low bounds on dipole structure of electric charge of electron, and now the paucity of a signal for the Higgs particle does suggest that nature is telling us something very different from what we have been thinking."
And yet, it is difficult to be fully consistent with these new discoveries. For example, when you write dt dx = h, are you assuming that dx now has a lower limit 10^-48 meters, or are you allowing for the possibility that there is no minimum length?
Also, you seem to have factored 'mass' out of the relation, dtdx = h, which is suitable to a transmission line, or mathematical formulation, but not a physical formulation.
You seem open to the possibility that there is no Higgs, but it almost seems as if you conclude from this that there is no mass. Hence you can equate massive or massless particles as "moving at the speed of light". You admit that there is no continuous transformation between these, but seem to act as if both are equally valid, although in a universe with inertial mass only massless particles move at the speed of light.
Granted, I may be entirely mistaken in my interpretation of what you have written, but sometimes I wonder whether math or physics is more 'real' for you.
Nevertheless, you are impressive in command of your own ideas, and I thank you for presenting them to us.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
Where things get really strange is with the quantum fluctuations of spacetime itself. The vacuum with other particle fields is also problematic for there is a huge sum over momentum values which packs a huge amount of “data” into the vacuum. I think that a particle, such as an electron, is such that it has amplitudes which cover the entire universe. In effect there is just one electron in the entire universe. We however observe the various amplitudes with different configuration variables, where these different configurations are an entanglement. So the electrons flowing through your computer are the same electrons and the same as electrons in a dwarf star exerting degenerate pressure against collapse, and the same as an electron quantum emitted by a black hole.. The same holds for photons, quarks, neutrinos and so forth. This holds for the vacuum state as well.
Fundamentally there is only one vacuum occupation level for a photon. When we do a Casimir experiment we measure the photon vacuum under different sets of configuration variables. This results in the energy difference of the vacuum inside and outside the plate setup. What we measure is not really a vacuum energy difference, but rather the E = kT difference in the entanglement entropy of the photon vacuum with this configuration.
I have to leave it at this level. The guts of this do involve some deep mathematics, such as elliptic curve theory and modular forms, which necessitates some understanding of A. Weiles’ proof of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture that forms the backbone of the Fermat theorem proved in 1994.
As for mathematics, I think it is clear that the foundations of physics require deeper levels of mathematics for its description. Physics has generally followed this trend from its beginning, and I think it holds today.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 22:32 GMT
Thanks Lawrence,
What I admire most about you is your willingness to let it all hang out. It is sometimes difficult to get straight answers to simple questions around here, but you profess your beliefs without any wishy-washiness.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 02:18 GMT
Lawrence,
I do have a general sense of the geometry of relativity and understand its usefulness, but it still seems time is a measure of motion and would make more physical sense as a scalar, rather than a vector.
For instance, there is no internal motion to the photon, so it has no time dimension. On the other hand, as that particle slows down, its level of internal activity, the "zitterbewegung," increases, so its clock runs faster. This level of activity is a scalar.
That is how there can be two clocks running at different speeds, yet remain in the same present.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:01 GMT
Space is spanned by a set of three coordinate vectors. Relativity is a transformation between space and time. Time must then be a vector, for it makes no sense to transform a vector into a scalar.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"Relativity is a transformation between space and time. Time must then be a vector, for it makes no sense to transform a vector into a scalar."
No time must be what it is. Time is not affected by force. Time does not move acrossed a distance. Time is not energy. If there is empirical evidence that shows that time responds to force, what is it.
James
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:41 GMT
Lawrence,
Space is no more spanned by three coordinate vectors than the earth is girded by longitude and latitude lines and the atmosphere marked off by altitude lines. They are all modeling tools.
Time as a vector is also a modeling tool. Specifically the narrative function, i.e. the history of a particular point of reference. In this case, that of the center point of the xyz axis', as the field being modeled evolves. While the effect of this evolution can be modeled as a vector, the cause, the cumulative processes involved, are scalar, in the sense that the level of activity strongly affects the rate of change from one configuration to the next.
Consider the twins paradox, where the one traveling in space ages faster because there is no gravity to slow the rate of atomic activity and all the molecular and cellular processes arising from it. Basically it causes the twin in space to have a higher metabolic rate and age faster.
In the other hand, if time were really a vector, this would mean that the twin in space would move along this vector from past to future faster and they would no longer exist in the same present.
report post as inappropriate
Lwrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
Time under the Lorentz transformation is interchanged with spatial directions. It is a vector in the same sense that setting vectors along x, y, and z are vectors.
LC
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
Lawrence,
If I may use the analogy, the Lorentz transformation is topography, not geology. It describes, rather than explains.
Yes, accelerating mass slows its internal activity and yes, we do historically model time as a vector. In fact the second point is redundant. History is time as vector. That doesn't mean it is physically foundational. Do we really move along that vector from yesterday to tomorrow? Or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? Motion causes change. Time is a measure of that change.
If the motion is faster, change happens quicker. That is why the twin in space ages faster than the one on earth.
If time really was a vector, than wouldn't the fact of one twins clock moving faster than the other's clock mean they would move along the vector of time at different rates, thus existing in different presents and not be able to meet, until they resynchronized their times?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
"That is why the twin in space ages faster than the one on earth."
No. Neither twin "ages faster" than the other, though it is the Earth bound twin who appears older, when the traveling twin returns (you got the two cases reversed).
The so called twin paradox is not a paradox at all. It is merely a predictable result of relativistic effects -- the straight line acceleration of the traveling twin is converted to curvilinear acceleration on her voyage home. The stay at home twin never accelerates relative to the traveling twin; therefore, RELATIVE to her sister she looks older. Nevertheless, each twin ages normally in her own frame.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Peter van gaalen replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 17:54 GMT
The quaternion algebra can generate a 4 dimensional manifold. The real part of the quaternion is seen as the scalar part and the imaginairy parts are seen as the vector part.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 18:18 GMT
I think some reading of relativity is in order. People need to read the basic stuff, where Martin Gardner wrote a book “Relativity for the Millions,” a book I loved in high school, which is a introduction to the subject. People also need to read it without overlaying lots of their own ideology over it.
Also some math might be advised. The tensor or Cartesian product R^1(x)R^2, for instant with (x) = otimes, generates R^3. The particular coordinate one imposes to work this is of course not important, but it is a useful system for working with.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
Hi Peter van Gaalen,
You said "The quaternion algebra can generate a 4 dimensional manifold. The real part of the quaternion is seen as the scalar part and the imaginairy parts are seen as the vector part."
I basically agree, but if you study the Minkowski metric (-1,+1,+1,+1), you see that time (the scalar component) needs an imaginary phase (that 'ict' term that bothers most people) whereas space (the vector components) needs a real phase.
Thus, if we want to use a quaternion-like 3-sphere S^3 to represent Spacetime, we realize that the overall phase of this specific quaternion is 'imaginary' in order to yield a 3-sphere whose hyper-surface represents 3-D space and whose radius represents time, in such a manner as to yield the standard Minkowski metric.
When studying metrics, there is this overall ambiguity that allows us to represent quaternions as 1 time plus 3 space OR as 3 time plus 1 space. Similarly, an octonion-like 7-sphere S^7 may represent 1 time plus 7 space OR 1 space plus 7 time.
I think that the ambiguity of this overall 'imaginary' phase is part of the math-physics that doubles our 'dimensionality' (and coincidentally looks a lot like our expectations for Supersymmetry) - such that your octonion model becomes a 16-D dual octonion model.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 21:04 GMT
Tom,
The version I recall is that the acceleration of the traveling twin isn't so much a factor, as once one reaches sustained velocity, there is no more acceleration, but that since the stay at home twin is constantly subject to gravity and gravity is equivalent to acceleration, it is this sustained effect which slows her aging.
Either way, the question remains: Why does acceleration affect the aging process? Further up this thread, Lawrence gave a thumbnail description of relativity, in which he emphasized the point that nothing travels faster than light and nothing travels slower than it. It is just with mass, this motion is contained within the atom. When the atom is accelerated, this internal motion is correlated to external motion, such that it slows the internal motion, so the clock of that internal motion slows. Whichever way you describe this, it keeps coming up that time is a measure of motion. In this case, the internal motion of the atom. Slow that internal activity by accelerating it and its clock slows.
There seems to be this presumption that we should just accept the geometry of spacetime as cause, when it seems quite evidently a model of a more basic reality.
Lawrence,
I certainly accept the math can be far more complex than any one person can ever consider, but than so is the reality it is modeling. That is why everyone has to be careful using it, or they end up in some other universe. As with everything, the better you get at it, the more complicated the traps you might fall into become.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 22:05 GMT
Tom,
While I wonder why you got silent after I objected to your two parts of a point, I picked up how you resolved the twin paradox just at their one hundred's birthday:
"RELATIVE to her sister she looks older. Nevertheless, each twin ages normally in her own frame."
Wouldn't such insight make unnecessary the petition at NPA?
Just a naive question of mine: Who looks RELATIVE at her sister?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 01:38 GMT
Tom,
This is one case where you have been drinking the wrong kool-aid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
"In the simplified case, the general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its "gravity well", appears to go slower than the clock that is more distant from the mass (or higher in altitude away from the center of the gravitational mass). That does not mean that the two observers fully agree: each still makes the local clock to be correct; the observer more distant from the mass (higher in altitude) measures the other clock (closer to the mass, lower in altitude) to be slower than the local correct rate, and the observer situated closer to the mass (lower in altitude) measures the other clock (farther from the mass, higher in altitude) to be faster than the local correct rate. They agree at least that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate and on the ratio of the difference."
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 05:58 GMT
Dear John,
Would you please so kind explaining to me what do "kool-aid" and "HAZ" mean. What about the explanations of SR and GR I feel sympathy with those who signed the petition because there are so many absolutely persuading arguments in support of them. If only they were mutually consistent and did not ignore some trifles.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT
John,
Time dilation is a relativistic effect. Until you understand what relativity means, I think it wise to stay away from wikipedia and crackpot web sites and actually study the subject.
The wikipedia article is correct, though you have completely misunderstood and misapplied it.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
Eckard,
I'm not arguing with the basic math of Relativity, just some of the various physical interpretations of it
. In Tom's example of the twins paradox, it ignores the effect of gravity and proposes an extreme hypothetical situation. That's a large part of the problem with trying to interpret extremely complex math, since math is inherently reductionistic modeling, each magnitude of complexity requires distilling away ever more of the physical basis, so if one is not very careful, the connection to reality gets very tenuous. For people inclined to focus on detail and ignore warning signs, such as the increasingly fantastical patches required to maintain some connection to observation, a dangerous feedback loop is created.
Edwin makes the point, further down the thread, that the mathematical realm is far larger than the physical.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 11:24 GMT
Dear John,
Not even you responded to the 5 aspects I revealed after Edwin made the point, further down the thread, that the mathematical realm is far larger than the physical.
I am also still hoping for your help to me as someone whose mother tongue is not English. I do not understand the meaning of "I CAN HAZ HIGGS BOSON?" I merely guess that Higgs Boson and SUSY have not yet been found. Otherwise I would perhaps read the sensation in my newspaper and hear it in my radio.
I humbly admit not considering myself more intelligent than the many who signed the twin paradox petition and of course less intelligent than e.g. Tom and Newton who according to the winner of the context easily understood Einstein. Discussing with Pentcho the article concerning Aharonov time symmetry, I wonder if anyone will support my naive attitude.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 15:42 GMT
Tom,
You still are not considering my question as to whether time is a measure of motion, or the basis for it.
Take off the intellectual robes and vestments for a moment and consider this from an average perspective. From the moment we emerge from the womb, we have to start developing models and judgements about the world in which we have entered, including the other people in it. Then we have to begin to understand our place in it and the limits these factors impose. By necessity, we all are able to perceive far more of the world than we are able to grasp and have to make judgements as to what is important and what is not. To the extent all other people are trying to make their way in this world, the degree of helpfulness they are willing to extend is necessarily open to question. So we always have to do our own due diligence. Not everyone and everything is what they appear. I realize you believe quite strongly in mathematical interpretations of physics, but your inability to address what I consider to be very basic observations doesn't inspire confidence in me. There is a bit of the Wizard of Oz here, where the loud booming voice is telling me how stupid I am to question the great Oz and to ignore the guy behind the curtain.
Eckard,
The HAZ is from the popular internet phenomenon of taking ridiculous cat pictures and putting captains on them: http://icanhascheezburger.com/
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 16:23 GMT
John,
There is no man behind the curtain.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:08 GMT
Tom,
Apparently no reality beyond space-time geometry either.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
That follows from there being no man behind the curtain, doesn't it?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT
Tom,
I suppose that would mean there is no reality in front of it either. Does that mean you assume a strong block time, or weak block time?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
John Merryman replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 01:49 GMT
Tom,
The problem is that spacetime is inherently deterministic, while the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, that there is nothing behind that curtain either, is inherently probabilistic. The reason Everett's multiworlds is being taken seriously is that it seems to be the only way to reconcile them.
Do you think there may be a problem here, or if that's what the equations say, you don't question it?
Now when I make the point that when we view time as emergent from the collapse of probabilities and not a parameter for them, such that it's the events transitioning from future probability to past circumstance, not a vector from past to future, it allows for both a deterministic past that is relativistically measurable and a probabilistic future, you cannot evaluate it because it might suggest there is something behind the curtain?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
This is the picture I get. There are an infinite number of fibers. These fibers are 1D space-time; they set the speed of light to c between emitter and observer. These fibers intertwine to form massive particles. Anti-particles are intertwined in the opposite direction such that they cause each other to unwind (annihilate). There are probably some differences between the fibers that implement mass/gravity versus those that implement charge; but the same idea works for both. Everything is interconnected with these fibers. Large accumulations of these fibers average out to produce flat space-time. Light can traverse from one end of these fibers to the other, but there is a restriction. Light can only frequency shift between radio waves and gamma rays. If these fibers permit light to frequency shift, then they should also account for time dilation t'/t, between their two ends. If time dilation can occur between the two ends, then a change in frequency for a photon can occur. A change in frequency should relate to a change in gravitational potential.
These fibers should account for GR and SR. These fibers should be describable with wave functions because they are the physical manifestation of wave functions. Wave functions are just empty space. Since they permit light to traverse them, they are 1D fibers of space-time.
These fibers, somehow, have to (conduct?) the passage of time.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Jason,
Why making these fibers only one-dimensional ?
The "fibers of space time" can be regarded upon as our universe but also as the possible paralel universal "life lines", imagine all these "fibers" (not visible as material fibers but they are experienced by US as a whole Universe) intertwined together, (just another visual trick) becomes an even better idea as the bubbles we are used to imagine. Everybody follows his own fiber (life-line) where the past is a point of the fiber, the now is not existing and the future the next point....
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
It has to do with spacetime and transformations. A 1-dim line or curve with an M^3 fibration will give different information on the 1-dim line by Lorentz transformations. There is no need for a vast number of lines.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 03:30 GMT
Mathematics is a method of modeling the physical laws of nature. I just don't see how physics can be implemented with a mathematical model. In contrast, if we say that every particle of mass is interconnected with every other particle of mass using 1D space-time fibers, the overlaps goes unnoticed. What I'm describing is the physical implementation of physics. These interconnecting fibers insure that the speed of light is c (vac) for all observers; they implement relativity. These fibers are space and time.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collide
r/8293812/Large-Hadron-Collider-to-stay-running-for-another-
year.html]Large Hadron Collider to stay running for another year (31 Jan 2011)[/url].
I'm still no wiser as to what the refit is actually for though.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
"Scientists have discovered that copper connectors are unlikely to handle its maximum output and so will close the machine to fix them at the end of 2011."
I heard on the news a few weeks ago that Prof Cox said that the LHC was having problems. Presumably something different to the copper wire issue
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"Time is involved with mass in the following way, which requires going back to the most basic notions of relativity."
Time is involved with mass. It must be. The existences of both mass and force are inferred from acceleration. Acceleration involves time. The answer to the question as to what is mass, does include considerations of time but not through relativity theory. The invention of Realtivity theory cames after the definition of mass. If mass is an afterthought then theory is in real trouble. The fundamentals do not tell the whole story, adjustments are likely needed. However, the arbitrary choice to make mass an indefinable property long before Relativity theory existed is where the problem with understanding mass began.
I do not think that Relativity theory is correct or proven. However, even if I am wrong, mass must be correctly defined beginning with f=ma. That definition includes getting the units of mass correct right from the start. The units cannot be made up. Each time that units are invented it takes theory further away from confirmation by empirical evidence. The units of all properties that are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible in the units of that evidence. The units of that evidence consist of combinations of meters and seconds.
I am posting this message for the record. If you find it to be incompetent there is no need to derail this thread. I think that others should pay attention to what you say. My opinion is different.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear william,
I think that the temporal spread of the observed universe due to transmission delay of em data, giving a time dimension is being confused with the passage of time due to change in spatial position of mass and particles within the space of the universe that exists unobserved. Just because for the photon the time dimension is irrelevant does not mean that there is not still passage of time, IE continual changes of spatial position of the matter and particles of the universe. What an observer observes and what -is- unobserved are not the same thing.
No it is not pedantic to say time is running when no one can see it running. Because passage of time is not created by the observer but exists without observation, unlike the time dimension of space-time which is created by the observer using delayed data input. Your comment seems to have this kind of flawed logic; those fan blades are moving so fast they can't be seen by anyone, therefore it is pedantic to say there are fan blades. Does seeing -make- them real, seeing is believing? OK William try putting your hand in there and say whether what you saw is really real -Being invisible to an observer does not make them incapable of slicing through flesh and bone.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,
In several posts above (to Jason and to me) you commented on or asked about Verlinde's idea that gravity is an emergent effect of entropy. I told you that I have analyzed Verlinde's theory elsewhere, and do not accept his ideas. Partly because it is a ridiculously complicated idea with over a dozen assumptions, some questionable, and also because my theory, which is based on gravity being real and basic, is making predictions and matching new experimental results.
I would call your attention to http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161 21 Aug 2011, "gravity is not an entropic force."
In Verlinde's theory gravity is essentially a statistical force, and this calls into question just how gravity can influence quantum particles. The fact is that experiments for a decade or more have shown the effect of gravity on neutrons, effectively disproving Verlinde's idea.
I have difficulty understanding how anyone could take Verlinde seriously, but it appears that there is almost a hunger in some to believe that "information" is a physically real entity, and this must lead to grasping at straws.
On a more general note, 2011 is shaping up to be a "miracle year" in physics due to an extraordinary number of significant experiments being reported. The INTEGRAL experiment demolished Planck length, the LHC will (I believe) wipe out Higgs and SUSY, and Aharonov-type 'weak measurements' support the de Broglie "particle plus wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics (that follows from my theory). Also Gravity Probe B's confirmation of the reality of the C-field. All this follows on 2010's discovery of the 4 percent proton radius anomaly that threatens QED (and also follows from my theory). I believe that many of the mathematical inventions that have cluttered physics for a few decades are going to be pruned 'real soon now' and we can get on with ideas of reality that at least match experiment.
I think this is a good thing.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 23:49 GMT
Hi Edwin,
As a Particle Physicist who tries to understand reality via properties of particle quanta and fractals, I am not willing to give up on the idea that quantum gravity exists at another scale. I don't have a problem with that information being relayed from a higher-dimensional space to our (3+1)-D Spacetime via a holographic boundary (effectively supplying the 'zoom' transformation required to 'quantum leap' from one self-similar reality to another), but I do have a problem with gravity being interpreted as an entropic force.
I skimmed Erik Verlinde's paper, did not see how it fit into my own schemes, and thus put it aside. But I think that Verlinde is saying that the holographic boundary itself changes such that it has entropic properties (similar to the information/ entropy content of a Black Hole event horizon) - NOT that gravity is literally an entropic force. This difference may seem subtle, but it is a critical difference, IMO.
In my FQXi essay, I declared that reality is fundamentally *BOTH* continuous and discrete (and thus explains wave-particle duality). If your theory has four fundamental continuous fields and four fundamental discrete particle quanta, then you may be saying the same thing (in a different way - of course). The only way that I see to unify those two extremes of continuous vs. discrete is via fractals.
I think of reality as a Koch Snowflake - it might appear to be finite, but a closer examination proves it to be infinite. Likewise, our Spacetime framework appears to be (3+1)-dimensional, but closer examination might reveal more dimensions - and perhaps even an infinite number of dimensions. Before we dismiss such an idea, we should recall that Hilbert Space *IS* infinite-dimensional.
I'm also not willing to give up the idea that fundamental scalars (Higgs or Goldstone bosons) and tensors (Gravitons) exist, but my models are *NOT* the minimal ideas from the Standard Model. Effectively, a scalar quanta (such as the Higgs boson) propagates the quantum field (the vacuum ~ the aether) required to induce mass into 'particles' that are 'massless' to first order in the basic Standard Model. It seems that something interesting is happening around 140 GeV. It might be too heavy to be the Standard Higgs, but it could be the Light Higgs of SUSY. Early LHC data implied that something else interesting might be happening around 370 GeV, but that significant void seemed to disappear with the inclusion of Tevatron data. The 'signal' at 370 GeV seems to be a *NEGATIVE* result rather than a *POSITIVE* result, but it should indicate new physics. I wonder if a SUSY Heavy Higgs and Pseudoscalar Higgs exist in the same mass range, and their conflicting parity properties lead to negative interference. I'm not sure - I can only speculate.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 00:42 GMT
Ray,
It's my impression that Verlinde *is* saying that gravity is an entropic force. I have just downloaded six papers discussing his theory and plan to reread his paper plus my original notes, and will check this point.
As for as Holographic models I have three observations. First, I can derive Susskind's results concerning entropy and area using nothing but concepts of energy. There is no need to consider information to obtain the 'area' relation. Second, the ideas of information used by Susskind are totally confused--he treats information as if it were a particle. Third, I believe the recent INTEGRAL results that demolish the Planck length have negative implications for such 'area' relations [I may be wrong.]
You say "In my FQXi essay, I declared that reality is fundamentally *BOTH* continuous and discrete (and thus explains wave-particle duality). If your theory has four fundamental continuous fields and four fundamental discrete particle quanta, then you may be saying the same thing (in a different way - of course). The only way that I see to unify those two extremes of continuous vs. discrete is via fractals."
I agree that reality is fundamentally *both* continuous and discrete, but I do not see fractals as necessary to support this. My FQXi essay takes a different approach to arrive at the same result, and I have recently realized that my approach can be improved upon.
Of course I do not follow all of your reasoning about Higgs and expected particle masses from your framework, because I reject the idea of these extra dimensions. All we can do is wait for LHC results. As I have remarked in a number of places, the results so far match my theory-based predictions. Obviously that can change. I am not a particle physicist. I was an atomic and molecular quantum mechaniker when I worked in physics, and QCD was just being finalized. Now, 30-plus years later, I find QCD has not gone much further than 1974, and the Standard Model is finally being tested. Thank goodness - I don't think I can wait another 30-plus years.
As I remark above, 2011 is a banner year for fundamental physics experiments, and I truly believe that a number of theories that have been floating around for many years are going to be pruned. Since there is such an incredible amount of non-physics-based mathematical invention clogging up the journals and confusing everyone, I can only see this as extremely positive. I also find it extremely positive that these results so far tend to support my theory and none of them in any way contradict my theory. Having predicted no Higgs and no SUSY since 2006, when it was not so popular, I'm not disappointed that LHC has found nothing yet.
Still having fun,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
Ray,
I remarked above that I was reviewing papers on Verlinde's "theory" on 'emergent' gravity. I pointed out that I don't buy holographic universe models as I can derive Susskind's holographic results based on energy, without using the concept of information. I've made this claim several times and no one has responded pro or con. So I was very happy to come across Sabine Hossenfelder's comments on Verlinde, arXiv:1003.1015v1, particularly where she states:
"The number N of 'bits' on the screen made no appearance here [in her derivation]. In particular, making the "identification for the temperature and the information density on the holographic screens might be "natural" but is unnecessary."
This is the first support for my position on "holography and information". I think 2011 is shaping up nicely!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT
The Verlinde theory involves really the motion of the holographic screen. It is not about the motion of a particle under the action of a force F = -∇Φ, which is conservative and has no entropy change involved. The Verlinde theory describes the motion of a holographic screen by using E = ∫F*dr, and equating E = kT = ST. So the displacement of the screen δr defines a change in entropy
TδS = F*δr
which leads to
F = -T∇S.
This is clearly not about the conservative dynamics of a particle, but rather the displacement of a holographic screen, such as the increased area of a black hole horizon after a lump of matter has fallen into it.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 04:59 GMT
That may be your opinion, Lawrence, but those analyzing his theory interpret it differently than you. And what I find interesting is the fact that one can derive the same area relation without using the concepts of temperature and information, despite the fact that Verlinde chooses to think about the boundary as a "storage device for information".
The confusion between what you say, and others' analysis of the theory, and the confusion of temperature and information when energy analysis alone is sufficient simply reinforces my point that unrealistic mathematical nonsense, completely separated from physics has led to the current state of physics.
On another blog one of the participants (Chauvet) says: "You are probably right, Edwin ... But those overwhelming theoretical objects, if unreal, bear the advantage of keeping the field of theoretical physics alive in the meantime, that is, until a new paradigm cleans up all useless dirt... It's like training in the time spanning from one championship to another; It is aimed at nothing but to fill the gap."
I agree that, when no new physics is being produced, inventing mathematical models and calling it physics is a good way to "stay in shape". But I believe that new data is showing up that will kill off much of this stuff, and good riddance. And I include everything that happens "inside of black holes" and "outside of our universe" and "outside of 4 dimensions". As noted in our above exchange, you think deeper math is needed, I think deeper physics. With your belief that only "one electron" exists in the universe, I don't expect to convince you of anything, but I hope to communicate with those who don't see the physical universe as consisting of one electron.
And as much as I do appreciate your willingness to go out on a limb, I still believe that you have abstracted mass out of existence in your above comments about "sitting in one spot you are moving at the speed of light".
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
Edwin,
Please, identify the specific boundary between "deeper math" and "deeper physics."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Deeper physics tends to require deeper mathematics. It strikes me as very unlikely that a new theoretical structure in physics will remove the need for mathematics beyond say freshman level calculus or basic differential equations. Einstein had to appeal to Riemannian geometry to work general relativity; he did not go back to Euclid.
There are reasons for working with quantum information, and in particular it is a discrete system of eigen-numbers of certain algebras. I have maintained for 20 years, when I first wrote a paper, that quantum mechanics and general relativity are categorically equivalent. Recent fork by Duff and the rest have taken a much bigger step in that direction. To work with this requires mathematics that is significantly beyond undergraduate level mathematics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 19:42 GMT
Lawrence,
"categorically equivalent" = "dual"?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Tom,
I used the term "deeper math vs deeper physics" in response to Lawrence's claim that "deeper levels of mathematics" are needed for the foundations. It seems obvious to me that what we are talking about is new concepts of math versus new concepts of physics. You and Lawrence appear to believe that the answer will come from new concepts of math, whereas I believe that it is new physical concepts that are needed at the foundational level. I do not claim that new math will not accompany these. For example I have problems in my theory that are non-linear and I cannot solve these except qualitatively and approximately. New math would help here. So I agree with Lawrence's statement "Deeper physics tends to require deeper mathematics." It is even conceivable that you two are correct and the new math will lead to new physics. But I doubt it. There is no limit to mathematics in the way that reality limits physics. So you are looking in a much bigger playground for an answer that exists in the smaller playground of reality. And I don't say this to engage you in your perennial argument about reality. Reality is what is real. Mathematics is not limited to what is real.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Tom,
In looking over your comment, I just focused on your central point, "the specific boundary". It is meaningless points such as this that always make me hesitate to argue with you, despite the fact that you have an excellent grasp of math and physics. You just can't resist veering off into nonsense. As if a "specific boundary" exists.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 20:07 GMT
Edwin,
When you claim that "deeper math" differs from "deeper physics" and are unable to explain in specific terms where that demarcation is, then I suggest you reconsider who is veering off into nonsense.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Have you seen this PBS Nova video on Benoit Mandelbrot and
fractals?I think this is part of the 'deeper mathematics' that we need to unite the seeming disparity between continuous reality (waves and smooth functions) and discrete reality (particles and bits).
If fractals and self-similarity are relevant features of reality, then we need to develop an appropriate version of Scale Relativity. Laurent Nottale's version of Scale Relativity only has 4 major scales - which I interpret as Super-Classical (Multiverse), Classical, Quantum, and Sub-Quantum (Hyperspace). This might be a relevant approximation (self-similarity normally implies a very large (infinite) number of scales), or it might mirror the modulo arithmatic of Normed Divisor Algebras (Real, Complex, Quaternion, Octonion, cycle over again) or intrinsic spin (Higgs - 0, Fermion - 1/2, Photon - 1, Gravitino - 3/2, Graviton - 2 ~ Higgs - 0?, cycle over again).
Reality might resemble the Koch snowflake in that it appears finite, but each level of correction adds more and more 'content', until it becomes truly infinite (like the Hilbert space that we use to model reality). Perhaps Notalle's ideas are just the first level of correction, and not the truly infinite reality (as El Naschie tried to represent with E-Infinity, but could not possibly be correct, IMO).
Either way, I agree with Lawrence that deeper physics will require deeper mathematics.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
Ray,
Is your idea of fractals an infinite regress, or does it start somewhere?
I've already remarked that deeper math may be needed to accompany the deeper physics. I also remarked that math is unlimited, and hence the search area is (infinitely?) greater than that where the answer lies (that is, physical reality).
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
Hi Edwin,
I suspect that a full description of reality will require infinite mathematics. I am trying to approximate this 'infinity' as finite self-similar levels of corrections - similar to the idea that you might have a reasonable comprehension of the Koch curve without actually understanding infinity.
I am currently playing around with a 52-dimensional model. Some days it makes sense - other days it gives me a headache.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 21:25 GMT
Ray,
As you know, I appreciate Nottale's scale invariance, of which you first made me aware. And I am undecided on the place of infinity in the math of physics. Just for the record, I do *not* see physics as an infinite regress. Rather, I believe that a 'lowest' stable state exists as a building block that supports 'self-similar' evolution of our universe.
A 52-dimensional model would give me a headache too, LOL.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
"Mathematics is not limited to what is real." I see many aspects, for instance:
i) The theory of point sets has been dishonestly and imprudently abandoned the Euclidean notion of number which was related to an abstract unity, i.e. to a measure that refers to zero. Alfred Nobel disliked Leffler-Mittag's mathematics.
ii) As one out of many consequences, even mathematicians have problems to plausibly understand some peculiarities of real numbers, of the notion infinity as an inexhaustible quality, problems at zero, etc.
iii) The finitist Hilbert who disqualified himself by declaring CH the foremost problem of mathematics and the direction of time an illusion led physics into the EPR confusion.
iv) Because Heaviside's complex calculus proved highly successful, it got used without the due restricting insight.
v) As a result, not just physicists mistook apparent symmetries for real ones.
How to escape?
May I suggest to clearly separate between the original and physical meaning of notions like dimension on one hand and its currently used mathematical "generalization" on the other hand?
May I recommend to look for as little generalization as appropriate? I see no reason to expect "deeper mathematics" by striving for the opposite: shallow sophistication on unphysical basis.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT
I would only add that 1D space-time fibers have to exist within some kind of void. Without the fibers, relativity and gravity don't work. For that matter, time and light don't work either.
Georgina,
I am not saying that gravity requires intelligence. In fact, I wouldn't even say that intelligence has to be emergent from GR. But it could be intelligence/consciousness conducting. These 1D space-time fibers, which are also wave-functions (the physical manifestation of wave functions) make it possible for intelligence to interface with QM and possibly skew the quantum randomness.
Weird stuff is allowed to occur.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
Georgina,
You really need to buy a safer fan.
Time evolves because, in my very simple concept, the inifinite number of 1D fibers of space-time which interconnect all mass, are transmitters of photons. Since photons have frequency, time is built into these fibers. So is gravity; gravity is emergent from these 1D fibers.
Edwin,
These 1D fibers of space-time are also, not the mathematical description of wave-functions, but are that which implements all physics (and are describable as wave-functions). You can't see them any more than you can see "space" or "space-time". You can only see their effects.
If you reject a 1D fiber of space-time, then you are left without a clue as to what causes relativity or what causes geometry. At least with a fiber, someone clever can try to say that it's really a superstring.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 00:53 GMT
Jason,
As usual, I find your unfettered imagination admirable, and pay attention to what you say. I am not much for 1-D reality, although 1-D models often lead to insight. Neither am I much for 'more than 3-D plus time' reality. My theory supports 3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave and addresses some of the key questions that have been argued about on these FQXi blogs. I hope to have the complete C-field theory of quantum mechanics written by the end of this year. [I've worked out the equations, but the words need to be 'smooth'] Recent 'weak measurement'-based experiments are supporting the de Broglie-type trajectories associated with particle-plus-wave, whereas only months ago I was being told this was crazy. I'm enjoying 2011 immensely!
You are probably correct that someone will turn your 1-D fiber into a 'string'.
Glad to see you back online these days.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Jason,
Yes I like those blade-less fans. The ironic thing I have found is that when you come across a blade-less fan and say "Hey this fan has no blades, thats cool" the people around test it by putting their hands through it!!
Still think there can't be a fibre of space-time. There can be some kind of super fluid medium of transmission in unobserved -space- but that which is in space-time, (constructed from received data), is constructed within a void. As the medium for em transmission gives no data about itself. It only carries potential sensory data with which a representation of external reality can be constructed by the recipient. As it, the medium, can't be detected it isn't represented.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 01:44 GMT
Hi Edwin,
E:"I am not much for 1-D reality, although 1-D models often lead to insight. "
When I told my fish that the water in their tank was made of point like particles called H2O, they looked at each other, looked at me and then laughed. As far as their concerned, the universe looks like water.
I think your "3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave " makes perfect sense in the following way. A 3-D wave function is ... space. Wave functions are just space. Eigenvalues and quantum states are just places to put things, places to put particles. What happens if you overlap space A with space B? You get the Venn diagram union of A and B. What do wave-functions (space) and chewing gum having in common? They can both be stretched into long fibers. That allows me to account for action at a distance, the R in Newtonian gravity, and relativity. When rocket A passes satellite B going 0.5c, why is there time dilation between them? Because there is a wave-function between them; there is space-time between them. What happens if I place a particle into a region of space? I get back your 3-D wavefunctions as particle-plus-wave. Why? Because the quantum wave is space. Upon closer inspection, the quantum wave is space-time.
Why are black holes black? Because gravitational time dilation redshifts the photon until all of its energy is gone as it enters flat space-time. A 1-D thread of space-time should permit a frequency shift, for a photon, from f = gamma ray to f = radio waves. If I think of E = hf as a kind of kinetic energy, then I should be able to add it to a gravitational potential energy: hf_i + U_i = hf_f + U_f.
I think I can have a change in gravitational potential energy that is greater than the frequency shift from gamma rays to radio waves. After all, black holes are black. I think I can use this to cheat the speed of light restriction by requiring a mininum of 2 or more 1D space-time fibers between two reference frames.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I've seen those bladeless fans. I thought about buying one until they told me it was over $100. I told the salesman I can buy a regular fan for $15, I just won't stick my fingers in the blades. Even as a kid, I had enough sense not to stick my fingers in the blades until I had tested the blades with a pencil first.
The 1D fibers of space-time can have a gravitational potential between the ends. That's what keeps the earth in orbit around the sun without an 8 minute delay for light to travel between them. This !D fiber is causal; that's why it's not a 2D space-time fiber, because time is not a real dimension. General relativity and Quantum mechanics are unified if this fiber of space-time is also a wave-function. Is anyone still trying to unify QM with GR?
If 1D fibers of space-time seem bizarre, guess what happens when they intertwine with other 1D fibers. They make particles. What do you get when you place n fibers side by side? A 2D plane of space-time. What do you get when you place N planes of space-time side by side? A 3D space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 01:23 GMT
Jason,
Objects that are spatially separated are also temporally separated when talking about space- time. So any line between them -does- have to span both time and space. I don't see why now you are just saying the time dimension isn't a proper dimension so it can be ignored. Either you are talking about space-time or you are talking about space.
If you are talking about space I don't have such a big problem with what you are saying. As you are then describing -something- in space, where objects rather than their reconstructed images exist. Something that conveys light waves and that also gives rise to gravity. I agree there is something but think a medium is necessary, which waves require for transmission, and which can be perturbed by the movement of massive objects through it, giving gravity and gravitational mass. The trajectory through space resisting change giving inertial mass.
I really don't see how making -that- environment out of 1D lines and bundles of those lines forming planes of lines and stacks of planes helps. It doesn't help with relativity because if you are talking about space everything exists at the same unitemporal now. There is no different time at which something can exist. So no relativity.
However if you are talking about space-time you are talking about a reality constructed from received data with time dimension artifact that does not have independent existence from the construction by the observer. Imagining the reconstruction to be the independently existent reality and putting some imagined lines onto it as an explanation/cause isn't helpful IMHO.
That said, I don't want to be a complete killjoy, its good you are back.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I have wondered, for a long time, how you explain that perceived reality is relativity-like while reality is not. I am not disagreeing about reality. I just am wondering how you explain that, as photons are received and interpreted, they convey relativity type effects. I always felt that your perspective did not receive the evaluation it was due; however, I think it has received enough feedback for me to ask: What is the reason that arriving photons indicate to us anything different than what reality is?
I have tried to keep up with your posts. If I missed seeing what I was looking for, please point that out to me. Or, better yet, explain in response to this message: Why do we not see reality as it is, from your point of view? I am asking about cause? What is fooling us? Please explain in your own way without regard to my way of asking this question. I will think about what you say.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 04:51 GMT
Hello James,
Thank you for asking. It is difficult to say briefly I'm afraid. This is how it now seems to me.
The reality that is perceived has to be constructed from the data that is received by the observer. Whether it is a biological organism or an artificial device receiving the data. Data arriving together is amalgamated/processed into a representation. It might be an image...
view entire post
Hello James,
Thank you for asking. It is difficult to say briefly I'm afraid. This is how it now seems to me.
The reality that is perceived has to be constructed from the data that is received by the observer. Whether it is a biological organism or an artificial device receiving the data. Data arriving together is amalgamated/processed into a representation. It might be an image such as a photograph, or an experienced present moment.
The data has taken different lengths of time to arrive,depending on the distance from the source.IE Different amounts of change of the whole object universe have occurred between emission or reflection of the data and its receipt by the observer. So the present observed in the image, or experienced by the observer, does not contain representation of all things -as they were-, existing simultaneously in space, but spread over time. This gives temporal spread within the present,a space-time present.
The representation is also a space-time representation of -what was- not -what is-. By -What is- I mean that which exists, as the objects themselves, rather than that which is reconstructed from data, that has undergone delay due to non infinite transmission time and delay due to processing time.
Different observers can not occupy the same space simultaneously. So the time it takes for data from surrounding objects to arrive will be different for each. The amount of difference depending on how seperated they are or how different their frame of reference. As what is observed depends on the spatial position /reference frame of the observer,it is relative to the observer. This also gives non simultaneity. A consequence of the transmission delay for data. Data can not be transmitted infinitely fast.I did summarize Einstein's dream about the cows and electric fence to Eckard which I think makes clear what is occurring.It may have been on the Color me surprised thread.
The reconstructed reality has a temporal dimension to it due to data transmission delay, that the independent reality that exists without observer interpretation of received data does not have. That transmission delay time dimension is not identical to passage of time. Passage of time, the sequential change of the whole object universe occurs independently of the observer. There is no temporal spread in that object reality, there is no time as a dimension, only space. Change occurs in space and what was becomes what is. So even though one might consider what has occurred historically over time, there is no time in which it still exists, there is only space.
There is still data in the environment though, spreading out from the origin, from which representations of former things can be constructed and viewed by observers. What has been experienced by one near observer already and is considered his past might still not have yet been received and experienced by another more distant observer, and might be considered in his future.It is the data that persists in space not the former object reality.
Making the space-time the illusion a temporally distorted representation of what was, created from received data -by the observer-; and the unobserved Object reality in space the really real reality that -is-. Existing independently of observation and therefore not being relative to any observer. It is the source of the data from which observations are constructed (The Objects themselves, emitting or reflecting all potential sensory data. As well as particles and media for data transmission and the data carried.) It is the causality front where all change and interaction occurs and the unitemporal Now where all that is -exists- in space without a time dimension, without any temporal spread, simultaneously. Temporally ahead of the reconstructed experienced present.
view post as summary
James Putnam replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Georgina,
Thank you, I found the cow story. Cute and easy to follow. Your full message was hard for me to follow. Re-reading it some more will help. But, I think that a few examples would also help. How do you view the Pound-Rebka experiment? You have participated here from the beginning of discussions, so you may have already written about it. I really do not remember.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear James and Georgina, [posted in the right place this time]
James asked a wonderful question, "What is the reason that arriving photons indicate to us anything different than what reality is? ... Why do we not see reality as it is...? ... What is fooling us?"
With all due respect, Georgina, I don't believe that you answered the question he is asking, and I would like to briefly try to do so based upon my theory of reality, in a way that I believe is compatible with your explanation. Recall from both my essays that I assume the universe began as one primordial field and *nothing else* and therefore the evolution of the universe can proceed only through self-interaction, which implies some basic level of 'self-awareness'. [To say that the earth is gravitationally attracted to the sun is to say that in some sense the earth is 'aware of' the sun.] This field, through mechanisms I discuss in my essays and detail elsewhere, effectively 'condense' to particles and these constitute the material bodies in the universe.
Although the prevailing Copenhagen religious creed holds that such material is not 'locally real' but a superposition of particle OR wave states, my theory of particle AND wave has [last month] been confirmed by TWO different experiments based on Aharonov's 'weak quantum measurements'. The significance of this is that while Bohr was correct in saying that the human mind cannot grasp the reality of particle OR wave, this is *not* the case for particle AND wave. I grasp it and hope to have a complete explanation available 'real soon now'. If, as I do, one also rejects extra dimensions, and extra universes, then we end up with a unitary universe of one field and its self-evolved manifestations in 3D with locally real entities, some of which are biologically evolved into logical networks that interact with the field(s) in a self-aware manner. It is therefore possible [and I believe likely] that we *do* perceive reality truthfully, and the answer to what is fooling us is...nothing.
The mathematical inventions of physicists-turned-mathematician happen to mislead a lot of people, but this is incidental, not inherent in reality. In other words, the photons James asked about convey reality to our brains which have evolved to understand reality. The brains create maps of the minutely small and of the vastly large realms but these are accurate maps and comprehensible. All attempts to mystify reality with extra-dimensions and with dualistic (particle OR wave) conceptions are misguided and mistaken--our perceptions of the world are valid. Some current theories are not.
James, I hope this provides one answer to your question.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Edwin,
thank you for adding further food for thought.It is good to hear your point of view.
It seemed to me that James was asking why is the reality constructed from photon data different from reality that exists independently, specifically in regard to why is the perceived reality relative and the independently existing reality not relative imo.
I agree that the...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
thank you for adding further food for thought.It is good to hear your point of view.
It seemed to me that James was asking why is the reality constructed from photon data different from reality that exists independently, specifically in regard to why is the perceived reality relative and the independently existing reality not relative imo.
I agree that the brain produces "maps" but as for accuracy it depends upon what you mean. Good enough for navigation for survival and continuance of the species yes but not precisely accurate. The distant object has to be seen as it was back in time, due to transmission delay of data, so the observed manifestation does not accurately portray how the object -is-. Due to the very fast speed of light it is admittedly negligible in everyday life and of no consequence but not when considering things of astronomical distance or things that move extremely fast or conducting physics experiments where minute discrepancies are significant.
Other differences I could mention are; the further away the object the smaller it appears to be compared to its size as would be measured with a ruler on the object itself. Also the brain does not simultaneously view everything in the visual field but scans and fills in missing data to give a complete picture. Therefore it can input false imagery that does not exist independently at all. One might say we see what our brain expects us to see.
I understand your desire to incorporate consciousness and that it fits within your own model of the development of the universe. However I think to say the Earth is aware of the sun is overstating what is occurring. It is not necessary to have consciousness involved for the gravitational effect to occur, IMHO. The Earth does seem to respond to the Sun's presence but I think it more likely that the sun's changing position in space as it proceeds long its Object Universal trajectory perturbs the space-filling medium and that perturbation also affects the motion of the Earth. They have a connection by being within the same medium and both affecting and being affected by it. The effect of the medium might also be described as a field. It provides no data about itself but only transmits data through it and provides the gravitational effect.
I do agree that multi-verses are unnecessary. It seems to me that the universe does not come into existence from many co-existing possibilities when viewed by an observer but the manifestation is created from environmental data emitted or reflected from the -prior- actualization of the Object Universe and received and processed by the observer.
I also am becoming increasingly dissatisfied with any kind of beginning to the universe. I think the trouble is we are accustomed to all things having a beginning and an end. The problem is in part with regarding the universe as a thing rather than a process. Einstein's hypothetical space time universe is a thing. It has a beginning and an end but when an observer gets to the end it is just the end for the observer because the whole universe, as it ever was, still exists spread across space and time.
The Object Universe, rather than the (image) Universe, in my opinion is instead an endless process. It does not stay fixed in time but continually changes and is only what it is, not also what it was and what it will be. Yes we can observe a space-time universe using data from telescopes to provide representations of what the data indicates was there. It is only the data that remains in the Object Universe's environment, IMHO.
view post as summary
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Georgina,
G: "It is not necessary to have consciousness involved for the gravitational effect to occur, IMHO. "
Well, actually, let me pose an argument that says otherwise. What is consciousness? There are lots of scientists who think consciousness is emergent from a dense interconnection of neurons known as the brain.
What does this have to do with gravity? Consider Newtonian gravity. Why do two clumps of mass exert a gravitational attraction upon one another? I've stated my theory that all particles of matter are interconnected with 1D fibers of space-time.
If consciousness is emergent within a dense network if interconnecting neurons, then why can't consciousness also be emergent from a dense network of interconnecting fibers of space-time?
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Jason and Georgina,
Georgina, you are correct that "to say the Earth is aware of the sun is overstating what is occurring. It is not necessary to have consciousness involved for the gravitational effect to occur..." I do not claim that it is 'awareness' of gravitational attraction that maintains the orbit, only that a fundamental awareness is compatible with the action.
But, since we know that conscious awareness exists, one must account for it. I believe it is simpler (more parsimonious) to assume it from the beginning. Everyone is free to assume that consciousness has always existed or else they can explain how it comes into being (which no one has yet done, and not for lack of trying.) You know my preference. One can assume a 'blind force' that permeates the universe and no one body is aware of any other body or field, or one can associate a fundamental 'awareness' with such effects. But to deny the fundamental nature of awareness requires an explanation for the 'emergence' of awareness.
You also say, "I also am becoming increasingly dissatisfied with any kind of beginning to the universe. I think the trouble is we are accustomed to all things having a beginning and an end."
Your position is understandable, but then you must account for the existence of "just so many" particles, and no more. In my theory the energy densities post-big-bang produced particles until these densities dissipated. If you have another model or explanation, I'm all ears.
My point to James was that my model of reality assumes awareness from the beginning, coupled with an evolutionary process that leads to our current known universe, and that there is no need or reason, as I see it, to assume we are 'being fooled'. Instead, I find it quite natural that the universe is 'looking at itself' (through our eyes) in a valid and comprehensible manner, not an illusionary manner. Many disagree.
Jason, you say: "There are lots of scientists who think consciousness is emergent from a dense interconnection of neurons known as the brain." You are correct, and it is up to these scientists to explain just how this happens. There is an absolute difference between the mathematics of pattern recognition and the reality of awareness. Measurement of the frequency of blue light is not the same as awareness of 'blue'.
Thanks for both of your responses.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 23:01 GMT
Georgina and Edwin,
Edwin's message: "The mathematical inventions of physicists-turned-mathematician happen to mislead a lot of people, but this is incidental, not inherent in reality. In other words, the photons James asked about convey reality to our brains which have evolved to understand reality. The brains create maps of the minutely small and of the vastly large realms but these are...
view entire post
Georgina and Edwin,
Edwin's message: "The mathematical inventions of physicists-turned-mathematician happen to mislead a lot of people, but this is incidental, not inherent in reality. In other words, the photons James asked about convey reality to our brains which have evolved to understand reality. The brains create maps of the minutely small and of the vastly large realms but these are accurate maps and comprehensible. All attempts to mystify reality with extra-dimensions and with dualistic (particle OR wave) conceptions are misguided and mistaken--our perceptions of the world are valid. Some current theories are not."
His followup message:
"My point to James was that my model of reality assumes awareness from the beginning, coupled with an evolutionary process that leads to our current known universe, and that there is no need or reason, as I see it, to assume we are 'being fooled'. Instead, I find it quite natural that the universe is 'looking at itself' (through our eyes) in a valid and comprehensible manner, not an illusionary manner. Many disagree."
Edwin, my perspective:
These statements are correct. It is true that we also tend to see what we expect to see and may therefore not see everything correctly However, the very cause of that shortcoming is that we already know what to look for. None of this knowledge is complete for any of us. But, it is close enough for us to see the world as it really is beyond a mistake now and then due to our own fault individual shortcomings.
What we miss seeing we can use instruments to help us fill in the missing information and then we 'see' more. It may be through a device or through modeling and imagination.
The greatest evidence for the artificiallity of theoretical physics is that it cannot account for the most important properties given birth to by this universe. This is as clear as scientific evidence gets to proving that the properties of theoretical physics are invented. That is why in my work I toss them aside and find the result to be liberating for the purposes of established unity and intelligence.
Georgina,
My first message about photons was intended to learn how you view the cause of relativity-type effects. What you have said about the consequences of the arrival of photons from our points of view is not what I thinking about. My message could have been clearer. It was intended to ask: Why do photons communicate relativity-type effects, which are physically real, regardless of photon arrival? In other words, delay doesn't account for them. I was assuming there was another mechanicsm in your approach that I was not yet seeing. Is there one?
How you would account for relativity-type effects such as length contraction? They are real and not due to perception problems caused by the various times that photons may be arriving. You see the consequences of a limited speed of light and objects that communicate using photons. My followup message mentioned the Pound-Rebka experiement because I was trying to isolate a relativity-type effect from considerations of points of view and varying distances. Do you consider relativity type effects to be real or only apparent?
For any readers: I use the term relativity-type effects because there are errors in the formulation and interpretation of relativity theory. Yet, the empirical evidence in favor of relativity-type effects verifies that the evidence is telling us the truth. The theory may not be telling us the truth, but, the empirical evidence is telling us the truth. If the equations concerning relativity-type effects were not corrupted by theory, then they would be far more powerful in informing us about the nature of the universe.
James
view post as summary
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
James,
you are asking a question that I don't really understand. Probably because we think about things very differently. As I see it, photons don't communicate anything until they arrive at the observer be it a human being or a photographic plate. So they have nothing to say concerning relativity when undetected. They are just in the environment being photons.
The data carried by the photon may become a part of the experienced present when it -arrives- and its position at detection, frequency and/or intensity data is processed. It is not in the observer's present when it left its source of emission or reflection, or is in the environment undetected by any observer. When it arrives the data it provides can be used by the observer together with other data to form a representation of what was.It will be experienced as the present- though, obviously, there has been a transmission delay, however small.
I agree that length contraction and time dilation are real. They have been shown by experiment to be real effects and I do not have any interest in disputing the experiments themselves. Time dilation is a consequence of the constant speed of light which determines what an observer will observe. This ties in with my essay largely about what is meant by reality and my assertion that in order to answer the foundational questions and overcome the Grandfather paradox it is necessary for there to be different facets of reality. One dependent upon the other, the Image reality, created by the observer and the other independently existing which is the actual objects and source of the data used for the representation or image reality.
I do not accept that time -itself- dilating is the -cause- of those observed effects. Though that is what happens in the model using space-time. That does not make the model wrong but only a representation of and fitting what is observed, which is an interpretation using the data transmitted as EM, rather than from direct access to knowledge of what is happening unobserved. Time and space are the void in which objects are set within space-time and nothingness has no means to be or become more or less what it is by itself. That does not stop the observed appearance from being real in its own way and the model a reflection of that.
I will agree that no one is being fooled -unless- they think that what they are seeing, IE the experience, -is - the independently existing reality. It is not. A different organism with different eye structure or using echolocation or "tasting" the infra red in the environment will experience their reality differently but also be aware of it as a "what is out there".
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
James,
You say, "These statements are correct. It is true that we also tend to see what we expect to see and may therefore not see everything correctly However, the very cause of that shortcoming is that we already know what to look for."
I did not mean that optical illusions do not exist, and I do agree with you that bias ("we already know what to look for") is distorting. My point is that there is nothing inherent in Nature, such as Bohr's particle/wave idea or extra dimensions, or anything else that inherently prevents us from having true perception of reality. This of course still allows for many people, for reasons of their own bias, to fail to perceive faithfully. But the alternative, an inherent inability to perceive reality, would be hopeless for us all.
This is why I believe that your willingness to "toss aside" mathematical inventions is not such a bad idea. I also think that Georgina, without benefit of math, has developed realistic perceptions. For solving specialized problems of physics and engineering obviously math is indispensable, but that is not your purpose. It's clear to me that many mislead themselves through mathematical inventions, and I say this as a mathematical physicist, with emphasis on the 'physicist'.
Thanks for asking such a great question.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT
Edwin,
You: "I did not mean that optical illusions do not exist, and I do agree with you that bias ("we already know what to look for") is distorting. My point is that there is nothing inherent in Nature, such as Bohr's particle/wave idea or extra dimensions, or anything else that inherently prevents us from having true perception of reality. This of course still allows for many people, for reasons of their own bias, to fail to perceive faithfully. But the alternative, an inherent inability to perceive reality, would be hopeless for us all."
I agree with this paragraph. Adding my own words to express what I think: The scientific world has been made victim to ideology. Empirical evidence is not interpreted with an unbiased mind or minds. It is forced into an ideological perspective that is so extremely limiting, that not only can life and intelligence not emergy from it, but it must live within an imaginary universe of its own making.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 02:35 GMT
Georgina,
I agree with you that a different eye, or different taste or smell would allow one to experience reality differently, but I do not see this as in any way 'hiding' objective reality from us. Psychedelics and synesthesia also allow varied perceptions of reality, but one can, in my opinion, build a realistic model of reality based on the limited range of sight, smell, sound, taste and feel, augmented by instruments. It is the current ideas of 'non-local and non-real' that, if true, would present an unbreachable barrier to proper appreciation of reality, and my theory and recent experiments are working to remove this barrier. The inherent mystery lies in existence and consciousness, not in particle physics.
You say, "I will agree that no one is being fooled -unless- they think that what they are seeing, IE the experience, -is - the independently existing reality. It is not." I think I know what you mean when you say this, but I think you may overstate the case. My belief is that we *do* have the ability to be consciously aware of independently existing reality, as there is no absolute dividing line dividing us from it. That is the point of my remarks. We are not separate from the primordial consciousness/gravity field from which the universe derives, we are simply a locally dense enhancement of it. We are coupled to this reality perhaps more than you are willing to admit. While you make a valid point, I don't think you should try to construct an absolute wall between us and independently existing reality.
This is not a matter of intelligence, or of mathematical sophistication. If all of the geniuses are at work on epicycles, all it takes is average intelligence to appreciate heliocentrism, and have a much more realistic comprehension of "independently existing reality."
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear Edwin,
we build our sense of reality based upon the data that we obtain from the environment through our sensory system. Which I call the Prime reality interface. It allows us to interface with the reality that is and create the reality that we experience.. but what exists on the outside of the interface is not the same as the reality created on the inside of the interface. We agree...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
we build our sense of reality based upon the data that we obtain from the environment through our sensory system. Which I call the Prime reality interface. It allows us to interface with the reality that is and create the reality that we experience.. but what exists on the outside of the interface is not the same as the reality created on the inside of the interface. We agree that different organisms will have different experiences.Consider an artificial reality interface. The machine provides the data and the person forms an experience based on the data provided. The software running on the machine side of the interface is not the same as the reality in the mind of the player.
Edwin I am not constructing a wall of any kind. I am willing to admit that we are IMMERSED in what is and everything is connected by it. I do not want to attribute consciousness to it because I just don't know. It is not necessary to assume it in order to understand time, which has been my primary focus, or to explain gravity or inertial or gravitational mass, or to overcome the grandfather paradox or to allow QM and space-time relativity to be compatible etc etc.I have previously thought and said "why not?" given the scale and complexity of the universe, and have also considered the organic being products of the universe observing the universe as "some kind of" self awareness but I am not prepared to go further than that.
The person, the proteins, the fatty acids etc are all that Object reality. Everything that happens happens in that Object reality there is no where else (we agree) and no other time....Other than the reality constructed from received data incorporating a time delay artifact, giving space-time experience, a world fabricated by the processing of the mind. Or virtual simulations. All of which are also within the object reality.
This structure allows the Grandfather paradox to be overcome because past and future do not externally exist. In object reality there is only unitemporal now, so no time travel.That doesn't mean no passage of time but no time dimension. The persistence of data in the environment allows reconstruction of events and for them to be experienced as the present even though they have already happened. For different observers to receive the data at different times, giving relativity and non simultaneity and for time dilation to be experienced even though there is no time in space to be stretched.
I also think it incorrect to assume that nothing really -is- until it is observed. As observation is just the manifestation of reality being formed from data originating at the actualized reality in the object universe IMHO. The manifestation comes into being upon observation but the actualization already was but unknown.The actualization has to preexist the manifestation in order to be the source of the data received and used to form the manifestation.You and I both agree that what is out there is really there, not many/all possibilities spread over many universes or such like. The extra universes or branching histories are unnecessary.
As for non locality; If space-time is the manifestation formed by each observer and not what is but what was when the received EM left its source or reflective surface. Then where things are in space is not necessarily where they are observed in space-time according to any observer. Especially if very fast moving and erratic. Space-time and the object reality space are not the same and can not simply be imagined superimposed. The observed present is after the reality of uni-temporal Now, because the present is formed from received data that has undergone transmission delay due to the non infinite speed of light. Because of the very fast speed of light this is irrelevant in everyday life but I should think becomes important when conducting experiments on sub atomic particles.
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 06:08 GMT
Georgina,
Thank you or your considered and considerable response. I pretty much agree with everything you say. It is in every sense a 'realistic' approach. I do not ask you to attribute consciousness to the universe although I basically do. The mechanism of experiencing the objective world is, in my mind, pretty much as you describe it.
I do agree with "I also think it incorrect to assume that nothing really -is- until it is observed." This mistaken interpretation is the essence of the Copenhagen idea of superposition, which has mislead physics for a century. I hope to present a more realistic interpretation 'real soon now'.
If I would quibble about anything it would be the statement "but what exists on the outside of the interface is not the same as the reality created on the inside of the interface." But I don't wish to quibble. I would rather agree on the nature of time that you espouse, based on "because past and future do not externally exist"
I always enjoy our discussions. Good health to you.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 07:07 GMT
Cheers Edwin,
thanks for your time. I am sorry if I have rambled on too much. I did want to clarify what I think and emphasize where we are in agreement. I would quibble with that statement too because it wasn't clearly expressed. There is nowhere else for that representation of reality to be other than in the object reality so it too is part of the object reality- but also it isn't at the same time. Like the virtual reality game is a part of reality but also at the same time isn't. It is different from the reality it is in. Thats why I represented it as sets in the diagrams on my essay thread. The Image reality being within the Object reality but differentiated in the diagram from those parts of object reality that are not themselves part of the image reality itself.
Good to hear that you are near completion of your realistic model. Look forward to seeing it revealed and to the response it gets from the community and others.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 15:35 GMT
Georgina,
"...Time and space are the void in which objects are set within space-time and nothingness has no means to be or become more or less what it is by itself. That does not stop the observed appearance from being real in its own way and the model a reflection of that. ..."
I am certain that my confusion is my own fault. I thought you were saying that reality in the present throughout the universe is non-relativistic. I kept looking for how your explanations about arrival of photons for different observers explained relativity. I think it is sinking in for me now. Your sentences above tell me that your universal 'now' is in compliance with how physics describes it 'almost'. Your description of how we receive and interpret information goes to demonstrating that time is restricted to that universal 'now' and that 'time paradoxes' are unrelated to that universal 'now'. The 'time paradoxes' that emerge out of relativity theory are only apparent and are due to treating perception as if it represented that universal 'now'
You are not offering a criticism of relativity theory per se, but, are offering a criticism of extending the interpretation and application of its treatment of time beyond the instantaneous universal 'now'.
Am I getting closer.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
James,
thank you for trying to comprehend what I am saying. You are getting closer. My last two replies to Edwin might be helpful in explaining what I mean. It is quite simple once you have got your head around it, but getting there is the difficult bit. It has taken me many years and some wrong turns to get it myself.
Forget about space-time and dimensions for a moment and consider...
view entire post
James,
thank you for trying to comprehend what I am saying. You are getting closer. My last two replies to Edwin might be helpful in explaining what I mean. It is quite simple once you have got your head around it, but getting there is the difficult bit. It has taken me many years and some wrong turns to get it myself.
Forget about space-time and dimensions for a moment and consider just space. A setting in which there can be objects and other things that provide sensory data, when emitted or reflected from the objects. (Here sequential change can occur to the arrangement of things in this space giving passage of time. But this is not the time dimension of space-time, it is just continual spatial change of positions and everything that -is- is existing simultaneously.)
When potential sensory data is emitted or reflected from a source object it travels out from the source across space. It does not travel at infinite speed so there will be a delay between emission of the data and receipt by an observer. So the manifestation of the object that is created from the received data is of the object when the data left it- not as it is, because it may have changed or altered its spatial position since then. The speed of light is very fast so for near objects the effect is negligible and makes no difference.
However now there is the possibility that different observers obtain data from the same events, or data leaving the object together, at different times. As when the data arrives depends upon position from the source object and order of arrival can depend upon reference frame. Think back to the cows and electric fence. Now there is relativity and non simultaneity because the reality is being reconstructed by the observer and is not the reality that exists independently in space. So the reconstruction has a time dimension. The further away from source of the data the further back in time the object is observed, due to the non infinite speed of light. Though the independent unobserved reality, that is the source of the data, does not have this temporal spread and so everything that -is- exists at the same time. The past and future are not part of that object reality.
Language is important to avoid confusion so I do not use the term present when referring to the Object reality Universe. This is because the present we experience is a patchwork of imagery formed from data that has taken different lengths of time to arrive and so is a space-time present. Not all things as they were simultaneously existing but put together when the data arrives together. The term present belongs to space-time, the image reality. For the Object universe I am using the term uni-temporal Now. That Now has no time dimension, no temporal spread incorporated with the space(unlike the space-time present).It is just space. You are correct there is also no time dimension in the hypothetical spaces used by quantum physicists but they do not have time for other mathematical reasons.
Relativity is restricted to the reconstructed reality formed from received data, it depends upon the non infinite data transmission time and when observers receive the data. You've got it, there can be no time travel and no paradox because there is no time dimension in uni-temporal Object reality space. That time dimension is an artifact of transmission delay incorporated into the observer reconstruction of reality only IMHO.
Yes I am not criticizing relativity. But recognizing it as a model related to a facet of the reality, the experienced reality, constructed from received data that exists within the non relative uni-temporal Object reality. The experienced -observed- reality being a sub set if you like. Still reality in its own way but not the same.
Thanks again. Georgina.
view post as summary
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 01:02 GMT
Edwin,
I have tried in my last post to you to emphasize the unity in space of all reality, which is important. As I have said there is nowhere for the space- time representation to be other than within the Object reality. However the -difference- of the reconstructed space-time reality does have to be acknowledged, in order to form a working mathematical description incorporating both facets of reality.
Though the reconstructed reality is a sub set, part of, of the independent Object reality, all of space time can not be fitted into uni-temporal space. Its like trying to bottle infinity. The important difference that allows this to work is that it, the space-time reality, doesn't exist until the observer creates the impression of it from the received sensory data. It is the data that is within the uni-temporal environment and the biological processing or mathematical calculation creates the impression of existent space-time after receipt of that data, either experienced or hypothetical on paper or computer.
Similar to the way in which whole virtual fantasy game world does not actually exist within the reality of the player, but the data to create it is on the CD and forms a representation of the fantasy world when it is accessed.
That doesn't make the experienced reconstruction unreal as it is built using data from object reality, that has been emitted or reflected from real,existing objects in that object reality. But it must be acknowledged as differently real, which is why I am calling it Image reality.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 01:42 GMT
Georgina,
G: "Similar to the way in which whole virtual fantasy game world does not actually exist within the reality of the player, but the data to create it is on the CD and forms a representation of the fantasy world when it is accessed. "
There are IC chips and processor boards that serve as the "physics engine" for these kinds of virtual environment. It boils down to addition/subtraction/multiplication/division of data within 8,16,32,64 bit registers.
What is the physics engine for our universe? For space-time? I think everyone on this physics thread would agree that is a good question. However, I think that the physics community at-large avoids this question. It is really too bad.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I have in other blogs remarked about awareness of the continuum as topological, with everyday consciousness imposing a utilitarian metric that is useful precisely because it allows us to pick apples from the tree without wasting precious time trying to pick the moon from the sky. But fundamental awareness (in the womb, in some psychedelic states, in Jill Taylor's stroke, and other experiences) is "pre-metric". I may be mistaken, but it seems the "difference" you focus on is basically metric. You are claiming that the (metric) map is different than the object reality it represents. You call this map the "reconstructed space-time reality", and then refer to "forming a working mathematical description."
My goal, as a mathematical physicist and conscious, experienced, being is to bring into my awareness a "realization" of reality that is true. I then strive to describe this in relevant mathematics, primarily as a communications tool to speak with my fellow mathematical physicists. My opinion (again, I may be mistaken) is that many strive for math that they somehow believe will make them aware of "reality". Good luck to them.
You have mentioned a virtual fantasy world game several times. I have extensive experience as a computer systems designer, with two university design texts, dozens of patents, and many dozen hardware/software systems that I have created and sold commercially. I understand "computers".
And despite the confusion exhibited in FQXi and elsewhere by those who think that "information" is physically real, and that "virtual reality games" have any relevance to physical reality, I reject this absolutely. Obviously some disagree with my views.
You seem to refer to the "virtual reality game" when you state "that doesn't make the experienced reconstruction unreal." These games are the creations of conscious beings (for fun or profit) and do not possess awareness (to any greater extent then a rock.) The "experienced reconstruction" you refer to is the "metric overlay" that rides on top of topological awareness.
Either there is one universal consciousness (my thesis), with local density variations and metric overlays ("experienced reconstructions", brain- and experience-specific) or each local brain "creates" consciousness and then must create a "realistic" model of what's out there (aka, object reality). Your model, and your explanations, seem to me best suited to the latter case.
I think we have somewhat different ideas of 'awareness'.
And yet we communicate well with each other.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 03:34 GMT
Jason,
There a problem Jason when you say our universe. There are two versions of the universe that I have been talking about. The one that contains the objects that exist and the various waves and subatomic particles. Then there is the universe constructed from received data. When you say what makes space-time you are now, as I look at things, talking not about what exists independently but what has been formed from by processing of received data by an observer.
How the human brain does it, the mathematical algorithms or code used within all of that electrical activity that goes on when a person is being consciously aware of their environment I can not tell you. Though it is now possible with brain scanning to see similar activity in similar parts of the brain when certain tasks are undertaken.So by looking at the activity in the brain it is possible to know the mental task being done.
I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to look at some of the advances made in AI, such as IBM's Watson, and how machine learning occurs. Not by programming in every single possibility but by giving lots and lots of examples to analyze and then find the similarities and connections between them. Rules are self developed and when that has been done for a huge sample any new example can be quickly analyzed using the self developed analytical process.
The infant brain understands far less about its environment but through the process of learning which is growth and connection of neurons and apoptosis of those that are not used, the necessary pathways are developed to allow better comprehension of the environment. As it is a biological advantage to be able to successfully navigate I think it not unlikely that some pathways do have a genetic influence on their development, which probably begins before birth.
I am really saying Jason that I think it is produced by the observer using received data from the sensory system and the processing network of the brain to generate a representation. I don't think we are just plugged into the consciousness of the universe and receiving a direct consciousness signal, I have no evidence for that. But I do have ample evidence that the sensory and central nervous system are adapted to receive and process environmental data to allow navigation and thus survival of the organism and continuance of the species. Something that hasn't just miraculously appeared but has evolved, getting better, over millions of years.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 04:56 GMT
Dear Edwin,
yes I am describing the everyday consciousness that imposes spatial position to the objects observed and boundaries to the observer. Not the other kinds of consciousness you mentioned.
Yes the "working map" is part of but different from the object reality. It is relative to the observer and does not exist without the observer who forms it. I have not been talking about mathematically describing the representation, the map,on this thread but getting the mathematical relationship between the experienced space-time representation and the object reality correct. Not mathematics for mathematics sake but for clarity.
It is important for me to be precise about this. So for clarity I have put the experienced reality within the Object reality as a sub set. There is nowhere else for it to be because the object reality is everything that is. However space time has a time dimension and that leaves me open to the argument that it is not possible to put space-time within uni-temporal space. That is why I tried to explain why I have considered it a sub set of that reality non the less.
Edwin, the analogy is used only to show that the data to form the representation exists within the object reality but the representation formed does not exist independent of the observer. It is not out there, the Object reality is instead. Using analogy the data may be on the CD but the fantasy is not played unless the data is accessed and formed into the representation.
I am not saying that the Object reality is in any way -just- data, I have said to you , both you and I think that what is out there is really there. I mean by that the objects, the medium and the waves and perturbations in it. Which affect other bodies immersed in it and produce the experienced reality when that object reality interfaces with the sensory system of the observer, providing the data necessary for a reconstruction of the external reality to be formed.
Every one here has there own way of thinking about things so I do not mind that we do not agree precisely on what consciousness means. I think you consider the immersion within the object reality to be the source of consciousness and to a certain extent it is ( because that is where the environmental data is, the EM waves etc.) It is perhaps a bit like the question of when does life begin which is also debatable. When does consciousness begin, is it when the universe interacts with any object causing a response? ( which I think is your way of thinking about it )or is it when the object uses that interaction to form a representation or impression of the externally existing universe and is aware of it via the representation? (my way of thinking).
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 05:05 GMT
Georgina,
Saying to Jason that "I don't think we are just plugged into the consciousness of the universe and receiving a direct consciousness signal" has no relation to my argument, and is the farthest thing from what I am trying to convey. That is why I said we simply have a different understanding of awareness.
I just saw that you have posted another comment to me. I will be busy for about 24 hours and will answer you as soon as practical.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 05:30 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Interconnecting neurons:thoughts::
interconnecting fibers of space-time:photons (Mawxwell's equations/GR/QM)
I think you and Edwin are familiar with the SAT format that I'm using. Whether or not you agree is another matter.
My interpretation of the data; which leads to interconnecting fibers of space-time, does not require anything exotic like a universal consciousness. Yet, such strange occurences seem to exist anyway.
Quite simply, are masses M1 and M2 from Newtonian gravity interconnected somehow? Are they interconnected by space-time (curved space-time)?
I'm not making this stuff up. I'm just using simple observation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I was not referring to your ideas and misrepresenting them when I said to Jason "I don't think we are just plugged into the consciousness of the universe and receiving a direct consciousness signal" but responding to what I thought might be Jason's idea/ assumption. As he asked "What is the physics engine for our universe? For space-time?" He seems to think that there -is- an -external- physics engine for the space-time universe that somehow manufactures space-time externally and we are just made directly aware of it. By his space-time fibers connecting bodies with mass, which also transmit gravity and time dilation.
There is no external physics engine creating space-time IMHO but only observer interaction with what is, and by being immersed in it, sensory data is received via the prime reality interface and through internal processing becomes what we are aware of, what we experience, -as if- it exists externally.
You don't think we are plugged in to an external physics engine creating space-time and nor do I. You have defined your use of the term consciousness.I have no problem with you using it as defined. I am not particularly concerned with demarcating what consciousness is or is not, despite being told by others that that is where my focus should be and not on anything to do with physics such as time. Consciousness is your specialism.
However I do need to tread on that ground to explain the -particular aspect- of conscious awareness that is tied up with the comprehension of time and overcoming the Grandfather paradox and understanding how there can be non simultaneity and relativity but also causality and an open future. That is the only part of consciousness that I am dealing with. The part that is to do with -representing- what exists externally because the other parts do not answer the particular foundational questions that I am answering. That is not to say that they are not also real in their own way but not relevant to what I am focused upon doing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
Jason ,
My simple answer to your question is No (IMHO). However the answer has to depend firstly upon whether you are being an observer observing the masses or you are considering the masses existing in a non relativistic uni-temporal space.
If you are considering them as an observer, the masses exist in the space you have created for them to be in and there is nothing connecting them other than the relationships that you observe them to have.So you might chose to describe that relationship using curvature of the space-time. But that is not the cause of the relationship which is observed.
If you are considering them to be in an unobserved non relativistic uni-temporal space there has to be some kind of medium between them that is perturbed by their motion through it when moving along their continuous object universal trajectories. That medium is affected by the bodies in it and it also affects the bodies, exerting force that influences the trajectory of the bodies. Empty space, nothingness, can not be curved and does not exert force.(IMHO)
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:56 GMT
Georgina,
Your last message causes me to return to asking about how reception of information gives rise to relativity effects. I understand the cow story. I am looking beyond it. I already mentioned the Pound-Rebka experiment. Another one I wonder about is Mercury's perihelion?
"... Relativity is restricted to the reconstructed reality formed from received data, it depends upon the non infinite data transmission time and when observers receive the data. ..."
Can you apply this concept to either of the above examples?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Georgina,
By rejecting the interconnecting fiber of space-time model... physics engine.., you are rejecting Occam's razor. InterConnecting Fibers of Space-Time (ICFST) create the background of space-time; there is no need to shrug when asked, "what causes space-time?".
G: "However the answer has to depend firstly upon whether you are being an observer observing the masses or you are considering the masses existing in a non relativistic uni-temporal space."
You can only be an observer if you are interconnected with a space-time fiber to the rest of space-time. By blocking those fibers, you can begin to move outside of space-time. If the fibers are cut, you can't observe what happens in space-time, and they can't observe you. This is the basis of one kind of force-field technology.
A Higgs field has to be the incoming ICFST from N fermions throughout space-time. These incoming fibers of space-time intertwine. This allows you to write F=GM_1M_2/r^2.
Curvature of space-time really just means that you have a gravitational potential energy across your fibers. This causes time t'/t between the two ends.
The background that contains space-time is most likely another space-time (a hyper-space-time) created from hyperspace-time fibers that interconnect regions of space-time in the same way that space-time fibers interconnect fermions. These are early chapters in the book hyper-drive physics. What book? It will be another 500 years before it's written.
ICFST is the Occam's razor model/physics engine that causes our space-time universe to exist. Different kinds of interconnecting fibers cause other kinds of universes to exist. ICFST also explain the basic principles of a Higgs field, which is really an interconnection field. Newtonian gravity is the hint that an interconnection field exists.
IFCST can offer more answers with fewer parts and far far less complexity. I thought that was what the physics community wanted.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 22:34 GMT
James,
I really don't understand what you expect. We observe what we observe and call it reality. However it can not be the whole of reality because of the unanswered foundational questions and paradoxes. Therefore I have given an construct/arrangement which allows the foundational questions to be answered and the paradoxes overcome.
I can not tell you what exactly is happening unobserved because it is unobserved and therefore is not providing any data by which to know it. I have said the two spaces, space-time and uni-temporal object reality space can not just be superimposed as they are different. So I can not tell you where something really is only where | see it to be in my reconstruction of reality from the data I have received at my particular location in space.
It is the simplest way I know to answer all/?most foundational questions and overcome the time paradoxes without relying upon supernatural agents or realms.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Jason,
I am not shrugging when asked what causes space time I have given you my considered opinion of how it is formed and outlined the limitation of my knowledge about the precise calculations that are performed by the observing organism.
When you mention cutting the space-time fibers to block receipt of sensory data it made me think of shutting ones eyes to cut out receipt of sensory data and meditating to leave space-time behind. Because I think that space-time (not space) is a product of the observers mind.
We really do have very different ideas about what reality is, and it seems simplicity, and so we will not agree.Our working models of reality are too different. However it is still interesting to hear your explanations and to learn more about how others think about the world/universe.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
Jason,
perhaps I should just add, Re formation of space-time: At it simplest data arriving together is amalgamated into the same image however long the individual photons have taken to arrive. So a single photographic image contains the product of data of different ages (IE data that has traveled different distances from source objects, taking different lengths of time and arriving at the camera together). So there is temporal spread within the image as well as a spatial distribution of the elements of the image. The image of the present is formed following receipt of the data and not when the event occurs and the data is formed.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I just wanted to agree with you about using disembodied information as the source of experienced/observed reality. I have been making a point of avoiding use of the term information as I understand it has particular meaning to physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists that is different from what I wish to convey.
Instead I have been using the term data because I am referring to sensory data or potential sensory data that stimulates the sensory organs of a biological entity, causing biochemical change, or activates detection at an artificial detector, such as darkening of silver nitrate crystals of a photographic plate. Actual physical input giving actual physical output. The output is not the same as the input. So change occurs at the reality interface, the sensory system or detector.
The potential data exists in the Object reality environment for example chemicals, giving olfactory and taste senses or waves giving hearing and visual senses. Not in any way separate from everything that is or merely abstract or hypothetical.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I have to admit that nobody is obligated to believe my ICFST model/physics engine. I am the one who is obligated to build a gravity field generator as proof that I'm right. That is much harder and more expensive than just discussing ideas at FQXI.
G: "When you mention cutting the space-time fibers to block receipt of sensory data it made me think of shutting ones eyes to cut out receipt of sensory data and meditating to leave space-time behind. Because I think that space-time (not space) is a product of the observers mind."
Cutting the ICFST can be one directional, as in your example, or bidirectional.
The benefit of this model is that it gives us clues to whole new technologies.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Georgina,
I was looking for the end. If the end is addressing solutions to theoretical paradox's, then that is what it is. The end for me is different.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear Georgina,
After composing a long comment or two, I've decided to yield to you. While I believe, based upon my own awareness and my experience, that my theory of consciousness is correct, you will nevertheless note that I did not mention consciousness in my most recent essay. That is because my theory of physics must stand alone as an objective theory (which I am sure it will) even though I demand it match my subjective reality.
I've expressed frustration that we don't even possess a common vocabulary to discuss consciousness, but that is only part of the problem. Awareness spans Millet and Markham's "Man with a Hoe" to the Zen enlightenment state with all other extraordinary states I've referred to in the above comments in between. One cannot assume that two parties to a conversation share the same state of awareness, or even awareness of awareness. This is why I can be reasonably certain that reality is comprehensible, while others here view that as foolishness. Therefore, for purposes of FQXi your model is correct. Your "image reality" is constructed from data received from "object reality" and it is our job as physicists to construct image models of explanatory and predictive power such that whether one possesses a pedestrian awareness that only walks within ones skull or a cosmic consciousness that merges with the oneness of the universe, both should proclaim "that theory describes reality as I experience it."
In short, it must fit into your model even if and as it subsumes your model.
Thanks for playing,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank you so much. Assuming the purposes of FQXi are to actually answer the foundational questions and not just "infotainment". I am rather overwhelmed by your acceptance of the utility of what I am saying and humbled by it. I have become accustomed to endlessly clarifying and arguing in defense of the ideas set out.
I agree with what you have said about the language difficulties and subjective differences in comprehension of meaning. There are similar problems with temporal language and communicating about time. That I have been striving to overcome. The language has to be clarified before the ideas can be expressed unambiguously.
Thank you so much for taking the time to listen and respond to my rambling posts. I do hope the ideas I have described will prove useful in some way.
Best regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT
The mathematics I invoke is modern, but it is not largely my own invention or proofs that I worked up. Moduli spaces of elliptic curves, or equivalent classes of modular forms, are the stuff which involves Weiles’s proof of the Taniyama-Shimira conjecture. This moduli space is something which I have found involves a cohomology for a gauge-like system. Now in a sense I took this abstract mathematics and did work out something rather new. In fact I worked this out just a few weeks ago. So I did a bit of new math, or really used known mathematical techniques to extend this system.
This does involve the categorical equivalency of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which can be thought of as a duality, though it is different from standard dualities. The 3-partite entanglements involves an elliptic curve
det^3(G) = G_{abcd}ψ^aψ^bψ^c
which is an elliptic curve, or a modular discriminant. The hyperdeterminant det(G) is a Jacobi volume that is the entanglement entropy. When this mapped from SL(2, C) type groups to SL(2,R) types is the entropy of a BPS black hole. The 4-partite entanglements are
det^4(G) = G_{abcd}ψ^aψ^bψ^cψ^d = 0
which is a Jacobi quartic curve. The real form of this corresponds to the moduli space of extremal black holes. The intersection between two quadric spaces of these functions is an elliptic curve. This gets into the cohomology.
The “duality” between general relativity and quantum mechanics emerges from coset constructions. These lead to parabolic and Borel groups that are projective varieties and the Heisenberg group. The projective varieties are light cones and the Heisenberg group gives QM of course. The work of Borsten, Dahanayake, Duff, Rubens etc employs the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence to arrive at the complex < ---- > real algebraic correspondence between entanglements and STU black hole moduli spaces. I wrote over 20 years ago a Galois field based result which gave an equivalency between QM and GR.
Physically this is different than standard quantization approaches to quantum gravity. This means that two spacetime configurations can interchange between each other through an entanglement. Spacetime may then exist in a superposition of states according to entanglement configurations. Further, quantum fluctuations in spacetime must involve event horizons. A spacetime without an event horizon simply does not quantum fluctuate; quantum fluctuations of gravity are entirely with respect to event horizons.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
Lawrence,
"Physically this is different than standard quantization approaches to quantum gravity. This means that two spacetime configurations can interchange between each other through an entanglement. Spacetime may then exist in a superposition of states according to entanglement configurations. Further, quantum fluctuations in spacetime must involve event horizons. A spacetime without an event horizon simply does not quantum fluctuate; quantum fluctuations of gravity are entirely with respect to event horizons."
This is exactly why I think Joy Christian's application of continuous functions to noncommuting, and then to noncommuting/nonassociating complex algebra results in a complete description of physical reality. The framework describes orientation entanglement, which you describe equivalently as the entanglement of spacetime configurations. In fact, seeing the way you have described the landscape, I may even be tempted to speculate that the Christian framework describes (and maybe predicts!) quantum vacuum fluctuations.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
Hi Peter van Gaalen,
You said "The quaternion algebra can generate a 4 dimensional manifold. The real part of the quaternion is seen as the scalar part and the imaginairy parts are seen as the vector part."
I basically agree, but if you study the Minkowski metric (-1,+1,+1,+1), you see that time (the scalar component) needs an imaginary phase (that 'ict' term that bothers most people) whereas space (the vector components) needs a real phase.
Thus, if we want to use a quaternion-like 3-sphere S^3 to represent Spacetime, we realize that the overall phase of this specific quaternion is 'imaginary' in order to yield a 3-sphere whose hyper-surface represents 3-D space and whose radius represents time, in such a manner as to yield the standard Minkowski metric.
When studying metrics, there is this overall ambiguity that allows us to represent quaternions as 1 time plus 3 space OR as 3 time plus 1 space. Similarly, an octonion-like 7-sphere S^7 may represent 1 time plus 7 space OR 1 space plus 7 time.
I think that the ambiguity of this overall 'imaginary' phase is part of the math-physics that doubles our 'dimensionality' (and coincidentally looks a lot like our expectations for Supersymmetry) - such that your octonion model becomes a 16-D dual octonion model.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT
Ray,
You should consider time in an Octonion framework as being a C sub-algebra of the Octonions. Then take the non-scalar set from a Quaternion sub-algebra made out of the remaining six basis elements as a representation of closed set vector multiplication, such as what is found for classical "axial" vector types, were the vector product of two axial vectors is again an axial vector. The Quaternion sub-algebra non-scalar basis elements of course map to physical xyz as either a right handed or left handed system. The remaining three basis elements also map to physical xyz defined by the choice of non-scalar basis element in the time representation. These three define an open multiplication rule such as the classical "polar" vectors have, where the vector product of two polar vectors is an axial vector, and the product of polar and axial is polar. This is precisely what is found in the permutation triplet multiplication rules involving any two of the last three basis elements.
Be careful extending Minkowski considerations and other trappings of a 4D representation into an Octonion framework. It is a different game.
Rick
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Ray,
I don't understand what you say about phase. in relativity, phase is not relevant. Phase is important in quantum mechanics.
1). It is just a matter of taste how to write the minkowski metric.
(-1 +1 +1 +1), but also possible: (+1 -1 -1 -1). depends on how to formulate the spacetime constant.
(+1 +1 +1 +1) is the regular quaternion, this is not spacetime....
view entire post
Hi Ray,
I don't understand what you say about phase. in relativity, phase is not relevant. Phase is important in quantum mechanics.
1). It is just a matter of taste how to write the minkowski metric.
(-1 +1 +1 +1), but also possible: (+1 -1 -1 -1). depends on how to formulate the spacetime constant.
(+1 +1 +1 +1) is the regular quaternion, this is not spacetime.
(+1 -1 -1 -1) is the hyperbolic quaternion, this is spacetime.
2). My model compares the minkowski metric
and the relativistic energymomentum equation
In the relativistic energymomentum equation we have mass, but in the Minkowski metric we have a vague spacetime constant that is not directly related to a physical quantity. So it is not strange to sugggest that I supposed an existing quantity in the Minkowski metric, just like mass in the energymomentum equation: gravitomagnetic flux, f. (has nothing to do with electromagnetic flux, or with electromagnetism in general).
Just like
we can formulate
But something doesn't make sense:
3). When we write the energymomentum equation as an hyperbolic quaternion, then mass is the norm, but that is strange. mass is just a quantity like energy is. On the other hand, the Minkoski metric had its spacetime constant. it is only said that the spacetime constant is a constant, it is not said that it is a single quantity.
Another thing is the problem that there are two different definitions of mass:
relativistic mass and restmass.
relativistic mass:
relativistic energy:
And together with
we get the more mutulated energymomentum equation:
Mutulated because the quantity energy is not the same as the quantity mass.
Like Einstein said: "mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing". Therefore I suggested that it is more likely that the spacetime constant is composed of two quantities. a scalar quantity 'gravitomagnetic flux' f, and a vector quantity 'burst' b. To show the dimensions of the quantities, they differ from each other by velocity (speed of light c):
spacetime constant:
So Minkowski metric becomes (leaving out c):
The same for the energy momentum equation.
The extra quantity is the product of energy and velocity: Q.
So the energymomentum equation becomes:
if we want to write those two equations to a form that can be decomposed to regular quaternions:
and:
view post as summary
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
Ray,
The inclusion of a phase gives the complex octonions. The octonions also have split representations E_{8(-24)} and E_{8(8)}.
The octonions have sets of quaterions, which in the S^7 or the subgroup E_7, are dual to the a triad of elements. This element plus the unit form dual quaterions. The quaterions with four elements construct 4-partite entangled states, while the dual defines 3-partite entangled states which are entangled with a state corresponding to the unit element.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Friends,
I wasn't necessarily decomposing quaternions into scalars, pseudoscalars, polar vectors, axial vectors, and symmetric tensors in my conversation with Peter.
Peter said "(+1 -1 -1 -1) is the hyperbolic quaternion, this is spacetime" and I was noting that standard Minkowski Spacetime metric of (-1,+1,+1,+1) yields the 'time-like' definition with negative metric.
Also Peter, if we are looking closely at hyperbolic quaternion math-physics, we should probably use the invariant quantity: (m_0)^2 c^4 = E^2 - p*p c^2
As Lawrence noted, this defines complex quaternions (and any extension - such as Peter's - to octonions would likewise define complex octonions).
Lawrence and Rick may understand more of the details than do I, but I see the parallelizable quaternion-like 3-sphere consisting of a 3-D space-like (or time-like depending on phase) hyper-surface and a time-like (or space-like depending on phase) radius. Close-packing of these 3-spheres builds up a 4-D 24-cell lattice which is representative of the exceptional F4 Lie group. Likewise the parallelizable octonion-like 7-sphere consists of a 7-D space-like (or time-like depending on phase) hyper-surface and a time-like (or space-like depending on phase) radius. Close-packing of these 7-spheres builds up a 8-D Gosset lattice which is representative of the exceptional E8 Lie group. Likewise the parallelizable complex-like 1-sphere consists of a 1-D space-like (or time-like depending on phase) circumference and a time-like (or space-like depending on phase) radius. Close-packing of these 1-spheres builds up a 2-D hexagonal Graphene-like lattice which is representative of the exceptional G2 Lie group.
I expect a TOE to include all of these normed divisor algebras, parallelizable hyper-sphere geometries, hyper-lattices, and exceptional Lie group *PLUS* their duals (such as a complex octonion with a dual E8* Gosset lattice, etc.) and their decay products - which leads to entangled bivectors, qubits, etc. The reality that we experience seems to have quaternion rather than octonion properties, but this does not exclude the possibility that another scale (hyperspace?) may have octonion properties that express themselves as 'statistical' measurements.
It is nice to meet you, Rick.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 02:21 GMT
The Cayley numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, or 2^n correspond to Clifford algebras CL(2^n + m) for m = 2 or 3. These correspond to the composition of 3 and 4 ψ rules
3-ψ: (ψ*ψ)ψ = 0
4-ψ: ψ*((ψ*ψ)ψ) = 0,
which I have found have a cohomological structure, as I wrote the other day. This cohomology involves stacks of elliptic curves. These Clifford algebras for the octonions correspond to the SUSY graded algebras for 10 and 11 dim SUGRA.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
I like dual algebras because of the mirror symmetry. I have looked at cohomologies, but am concerned about the apparently broken symmetry. Of course, Reality is a broken symmetry...
Did you omit a comma from "CL(2^n + m)"?
Your 3-ψ and 4-ψ partite rules are interesting, but what about the modulus 8 property of Cayley numbers?
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
I am playing with one M-theory model that builds a cohomology around time.
report post as inappropriate
Lwrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
The notation is CL(V), for dim(V) = 2^n + m.
There is a Bott periodicity with this that cycles. However, I don’t largely give consideration to sedenions and the like. In effect we run out of algebra, and there is no division algebra beyond N = 8. A more fruitful route I think is to think about the Mathieu group, sporadic groups and the Jordan matrix algebra.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 18:26 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
I am using an approach similar to Jordan Matrix algebra. Would you be interested in a summary of my latest ideas?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 00:00 GMT
I could give them a look.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 19:57 GMT
Hi Ray,
Remember that in my model there are 4 scalars: time, gravitomagnetic flux, mass and energy. They behave to each other like units in the complex plane. I stated before that E=mc^2 is not correct, because E = (ic)^2 m. Therefore E = -mc^2.
In my octonion model, next to i, j and k, also L is an imaginairy unit. the four scalars are related as follows: f, LE, -t, -Lm.
For each of the four elements of the quaternion of spacetime, there are 4 other elements, which relate to them as elements {1, i, , -1, -i}. 4 x 4 = 16 in total.
So my model is in accordance with a complexified quaternion.
Maybe a split-biquaternion.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
Hi Peter,
I get it - complex bi-quaternions rather than complex octonions. We could use Cayley-Dickson construction to build octonions out of pairs of quaternions, but then you lose a couple of relevant scalars.
report post as inappropriate
Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 05:06 GMT
Hi Ray,
Al those complex and hyper complex numbers are related. They are very much the same.
Let's have a look at the complex numbers, there are 3 kinds (use paper and pensil to draw them, so you can visualize them):
1). The complex numbers:
The complex circle in the Argand plane. Arrows point counterclockwise.
At the rigth number 1. At top the imaginairy unit i. At the left -1. and at bottom -i.
i^2 = -1.
Now flip the circle 180 degrees in the Argand plan so that the arrows point clockwise. only the circle. Still at the rigth number 1, at top imaginairy unit i, at the left -1, and at bottom -i. Now i^2 = 1. I don't know how these complex numbers are named, but I called them hyperbolic complex numbers.
We rotate the circle again, but now 90 degrees, with the rotation axis in the Argand plane. Now we have the split complex numbers. If the rotation axis is horizontal, we get j^0 = 1 , j^1 = j, j^2 = 1, j^3 = j (we see that j is -1, but then written in imaginairy disguise) The rotation axis can also be vertical or any other position between horizontal and vertical.
report post as inappropriate
Hans van Leunen replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 10:05 GMT
Insisting on the restrictions set by the Minkowski signature denies the fact that there exist a fundamental difference between space and time. First there exist two notions of time: proper time and coordinate time. The Minkowski signature concerns coordinate time. Next position (in space) is a property of physical particles, but time is just a parameter. Nature appears to appy quaternions as eigenvalues, but seems to ignore the real part when position or momentum are concerned. The Minkowski signature is a collary of the uniform displacement group when it is applied in isomorphic space and with a fixed maximum speed.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 12:23 GMT
Dear Hans,
I'm not here to debate the nature of Time. FQXi sponsored an essay contest and several sizable research grants to 'study' that idea. I would insist that time really does exist, and that we measure time as a positive real quantity with ticks of a clock, or similar tools. I'm simply saying that the Minkowski metric provides that overall imaginary phase that we need to put time and space on a similar mathematical footing:
(ct*SQRT(-1), x, y, z) yields a metric of: (-1,+1,+1,+1) with c = 1.
If we go back to Hamilton's original definition of Quaternions,
i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1, we realize that these vector components, (i, j, k) all contain an imaginary phase relative to the scalar Quaternion component. Putting the relative imaginary phases of these quaternion components on a similar mathematical footing. we have:
(s, i*SQRT(-1), j*(SQRT(-1), k*(SQRT(-1)) which yields a metric of:
(+1,-1,-1,-1) - exactly opposite the Minkowski metric, but the point is that the Minkowski metric DOES provide the necessary overall phase of SQRT(-1) between scalar and vector components - everything else is choice of mathematical basis.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
Instantaneity requires true and fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency/balancing.
report post as inappropriate
DiMeglio replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Quantum mechanics is fundamentally incomplete/fragmented/reduced due to/consistent with the above statement. I proved this. TIME IS LACKING AT BOTTOM.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:43 GMT
Everything is force/energy consistent with distance ultimately. Instantaneity is a requirement of this, admit it.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Instantaneity is actually a fundamental feature/aspect of both space and time.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Any true and fundamental understanding of time in physics requires and includes instantaneity. You do not understand this, but I proved it.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:20 GMT
If you distort, unnatually, visual experience, do you not distort/reduce the understanding/intelligibility? Mathematics is relatively narrow/reduced thinking. Can we find truth in a TV? Better start thinking boys.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:32 GMT
James and Georgina,
James asked a wonderful question, "What is the reason that arriving photons indicate to us anything different than what reality is? ... Why do we not see reality as it is...? ... What is fooling us?"
With all due respect, Georgina, I don't believe that you answered the question he is asking, and I would like to briefly try to do so based upon my theory of reality, in a way that I believe is compatible with your explanation. Recall from both my essays that I assume the universe began as one primordial field and *nothing else* and therefore the evolution of the universe can proceed only through self-interaction, which implies some basic level of 'self-awareness'. [To say that the earth is gravitationally attracted to the sun is to say that in some sense the earth is 'aware of' the sun.] This field, through mechanisms I discuss in my essays and detail elsewhere, effectively 'condense' to particles and these constitute the material bodies in the universe.
Although the prevailing Copenhagen religious creed holds that such material is not 'locally real' but a superposition of particle OR wave states, my theory of particle AND wave has [last month] been confirmed by TWO different experiments based on Aharonov's 'weak quantum measurements'. The significance of this is that while Bohr was correct in saying that the human mind cannot grasp the reality of particle OR wave, this is *not* the case for particle AND wave. I grasp it and hope to have a complete explanation available 'real soon now'. If, as I do, one also rejects extra dimensions, and extra universes, then we end up with a unitary universe of one field and its self-evolved manifestations in 3D with locally real entities, some of which are biologically evolved into logical networks that interact with the field(s) in a self-aware manner. It is therefore possible [and I believe likely] that we *do* perceive reality truthfully, and the answer to what is fooling us is...nothing.
The mathematical inventions of physicists-turned-mathematician happen to mislead a lot of people, but this is incidental, not inherent in reality. In other words, the photons James asked about convey reality to our brains which have evolved to understand reality. The brains create maps of the minutely small and of the vastly large realms but these are accurate maps and comprehensible. All attempts to mystify reality with extra-dimensions and with dualistic (particle OR wave) conceptions are misguided and mistaken--our perceptions of the world are valid. Some current theories are not.
James, I hope this provides one answer to your question.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Aug. 27, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Edwin, particle and wave can be seen as invisible and visible -- and this is key to unification in physics -- but you have to consider both dreams and waking as they are ultimately related.
Don't dance around everything. Particle and wave can be seen as involving instantaneity and larger and smaller space, ultimately, that is.
Consider instantaneity as I have described this in its fullness here.
THE ULTIMATE UNDERSTANDING IN PHYSICS COMBINES AND INCLUDES OPPOSITES EDWIN.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Your view of reality is really razed by OCCAM, as amatter of fact it is what I call the first instant reality and everything that we phantasize about after this is pure theory and can never be tested (hmm untill now...), the clarity of this view however is both overwhelming and HARD , no space for extra dimensions, no space for heaven or hell, the only thing Edwin is that you indicate : THE SELF AWARENESS OF THE UNIVERSE, this my friend is the weak side of your very comprehensible and ultimate logic, WYSIWYG universe, this indicates an eternal self awareness, so I think by then : here we go again this must be a myth. Really in principle the most simple conclusion is in fact yours when you also solve this (last) one ...
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,
Thanks for your comments. You are correct that the weakest link in my argument is that I assume a fundamental 'self-awareness' of the primordial field that evolves to our known current reality. All that is necessary to disprove my hypothesis is for someone to unequivocally show how awareness can emerge from building blocks. Having spent many decades on the problem of awareness I am not worried about anyone demolishing my theory, now or in the future. The parts do not become aware when they are arranged in any particular order. They easily calculate and compute, but generate no awareness, absolutely none. As you may recall, rather than formulate a theory based upon concepts and ideas that are idealizations, I base my theory on two aspects of reality that I *directly* experience, gravity and consciousness. All of today's known physics follows from this, including the particles of the Standard Model but minus the Higgs and SUSY. This year, thanks to many stimulations from FQXi members, I have extended the theory to explain quantum mechanics, and the recent 'weak measurements' of quantum phenomena confirm my approach based on 'particle AND wave' as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation of 'particle OR wave'. So I feel that my hypothesis of fundamental awareness is serving me well.
If one assumes that all living things from cells to insects to snails, to snakes, to fish, birds, and mammals have **some** degree of self-awareness, then the number of different ways that 'brains' can be constructed must number in the millions, therefore the common principle that produces awareness in all of these different structures must be very simple to apply to all of them. Yet no-one can explain such a simple principle, nor do I believe they ever will. Its easier and make more sense to assume universal awareness based on the primordial field, with the logic and hence 'intelligence' dependent on the logical network in each species, and coupling to the field through local mass motion.
I sleep well at night without worrying that anyone will explain awareness as structural and hence discredit my theory.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Please do not think that I attack your vision, we all have to begin somewhere, and as always every beginning is difficult, I accept your beginning (not as the truth) I have another one as you know (that I am not sure about neither) your self awareness of the primordial field can be called (by others, not by me) GOD and so there is no problem at all with your beginning, it is mentioned in very old books already. The fact is that once you accept this awareness the way you indicate it, the rest of the universe becomes very simple, you might almost say that it is the ultimate Occam Razor. I understand that you sleep well. This form of "cogito ergo sum" from Descartes is a product of our intelligence (consciousness + logic ,as you indicate), the cogito of other forms of living and also of the ones that for our awareness are non living entities is a mystery, we are living inside the little sphere of our body and mind, dependant on the signals that we receive from the so called outside-world (see my reaction of today on the blog from Zeeya Merali, it is the first one so easy to find), so we have to keep on searching and thinking with these limited possibillities but we can even think (!) that we can explain our reason of living.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 01:13 GMT
Hello Edwin,
"I sleep well at night without worrying that anyone will explain awareness as structural and hence discredit my theory."
I wouldn't sleep well if I were you, since I have already
explained "awareness as structural".
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT
That's one of the features (completeness) that I always liked about Lev's framework. When awareness is integrated into the initial state as a necessary and sufficient condition for the evolution of consciousness, one need not lean on an incomplete state of self-awareness -- in which meaning is completely subjective and relative.
(You seem to have a burr under your saddle these days, Lev. I hope you aren't burning yourself out on completing the book, especially when you live in one of the most beautiful spots in North America, at the height of its most beautiful season. :-) )
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT
Hi Tom,
Even when awareness is *integrated into "the initial state" as a nececerry and sufficient condition for the eveolution of consciousness*, this "initial state" means that it was already existing in other words "aware" may be not as a what you may call "induvidual" self awareness that is subjective and relative but in your view must be non objective and universal, well here we go again.... this is the kind of awareness that Edwin is indicating, he calls it "The Self Awareness of the Universe" so you and Edwin are expressing the same for me unexpliquable basic thought. I am starting to read now Lev's 76 pages and wonder how he is going to explain the structural awareness.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
Edwin's view and mine are poles apart. Consciousness integrated into the initial condition of the universe is not self aware. That's a religious belief, demanding all sorts of philosophical machinations that assign necessary properties to a creator god. A self organized universe of integrated elemental consciousness is evolutionary, reaching a sum greater than its parts. A self aware universe is always limited by its own awareness.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
"You seem to have a burr under your saddle these days, Lev. I hope you aren't burning yourself out on completing the book, especially when you live in one of the most beautiful spots in North America, at the height of its most beautiful season"
Tom,
To some extent I'm becoming somewhat impatient, as I begin to see more and more why we urgently need to switch to the structural representation, while the science, which is--always unexpectedly to me--completely full of people who are genetically averse to/scared of radical changes.
Obviously something is very very wrong with our educational systems. Change which has been in the air now for *at least* the last half a century somehow still cannot penetrate the sculls of most of the scientists, at least their way of thinking.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are being periodically wasted on science because funding agencies cannot hire competent people that can organize a conference and a journal on the truly radical scientific ideas.
I'm frustrated because, despite the golden cage, we still live in the dark age.
Tom, however, I do like the season, it's my favorite, if only I didn't have to go into the debt because of the ongoing renovation. ;-)
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
Cheer up, Lev. While I agree that education is in a sorry state, there are reasons to be optimistic. We have faster communication and more potential learning resources than ever before in history. With the political will to guaranteee free lifetime public education to everyone, democracy will survive (and sooner or later, the democracies will have to realize that without this component, democracy is dead; either that, or we're so stupid as to deserve extinction).
"Big science" has been undergoing an adjustment ever since the supercollider debacle. That confusion will eventually drain away when we decide to either go forward with complete centralization toward "dreams of a final theory," or break into smaller competing groups. It's kind of a standoff right now, with not enough resources dedicated to going "real big," nor the will to give it up in favor of the kind of radical grassroots organization you'd like to see. And of course, there's politics -- as William pointed out via Weinberg's experience, the people who hold the pursestrings are only interested in science, if we can help them find God or build another bomb; knowledge for its own sake never seems to occur to them.
At any rate, one or two dramatic research breakthroughs either way should tip the scale.
On to the second Renaissance. :-) Mayvbe we're only seeing the dark before the dawn.
Good luck with the money pit -- I mean, the house. Just remember that breaking your bank account isn't half as bad as breaking your back.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 00:06 GMT
As usual we can't even agree upon terms in this discussion. Tom and I don't take awareness to be the same thing and I have no idea what Lev means by awareness. If he can show that awareness derives from structure, his name will outlive Newton, Darwin, Einstein, or any other. I'm not holding my breath.
It's pointless to argue using different definitions.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 01:30 GMT
Edwin,
Why are you trying to unnecessarily mystify "awareness"?
However, I'm suggesting that under any *reasonable* definition you choose my claim still stands.
By the way, under my postulates for the organization of Nature (at the the beginning of section 1.4), there is only one reasonable definition of "awareness", although I don't like the term that sounds so mystical.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 03:42 GMT
Lev,
BF Skinner's behaviorism may simply be raising it's head again. There are some, such as Daniel Dennett, who believe that awareness is an illusion and free will does not exist. I don't argue with these people. Dennett's theory is generally referred to as a theory of 'zombies' and I don't argue with zombies. It's as if one party is blind and insisting that 'blue' is "just a frequency", while the sighted party is aware of blue as blue. And another party insists that blue is just an excitation in a certain area of the brain. All these opinions exist, but they have the same relation as the map to territory. Unfortunately some can't tell the map from the territory.
The fact that you do not think awareness is a mystery proves we are not talking about the same thing. And if we're not talking about the same thing then there is no point in arguing.
Best of luck with your theory.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT
Edwin,
Lev's structural formalism eliminates mind-matter dualism, which is an essential assumption of awareness and self-awareness. What's left is the prcoessing of information *independent* of any substrate (such as a computer or even a CNS/brain). This is antithetical to Dennett's view that consciousness is external, and even to Minsky's view that brains are "computers made of meat."
It also implies that consciousness is integral to information processing and is so not differentiable from the events that instantiate consciousness among interacting forms. Therefore form and formalism (formal representation) are unitary and coevolutionary. I.e., conscious.
I find it ironic that so many -- and particularly in this forum -- who trumpet their ability to "think outside the box" speak from inside their own box of self awareness.
There is no box. No man behind the curtain. No prison of awareness, whether external or self imposed.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Tom,
Repeating your concepts, that so differ from mine, may make you happy, but trying to put my ideas in your words is just a waste of time. You seem to think you understand what I'm saying, but you aren't even close. I think it must go beyond the words themselves, to the experience of reality. You assume that you and I share an identical awareness of awareness, but I do not assume that, based on your words. There is a catchall term, "chattering classes" that refers to those who are so caught up in words that they have lost touch with the underlying awareness of quiet. I suspect mathematicians also risk being lost in abstraction. The busy little brain creates so much noise that the quiet experience of awareness is lost. You refer to such things that you don't understand as 'religious'; your way of dismissing it.
As I said above, awareness spans Millet and Markham's "Man with a Hoe" to the Zen enlightenment state with all other extraordinary states I've referred to in the above comments in between. I don't assume that two parties to a conversation share the same state of awareness, or even awareness of awareness.
It's clear I cannot make you understand what I mean by consciousness, but I can definitely tell you what I don't mean. I don't mean anything that "implies that consciousness is integral to information processing."
You can shout til the cows come home that "blue is just a frequency". I still am aware of blue.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
Hi Tom,
Plato once indicated that we are in a cave, you can call it a box, and only perceive a shade of what is "reality" outside that box, so even Plato being in his box was able to imagine a outside the box universe, happily it is our ability to do that, somehow we are aware of an "outside" universe that is bigger or has more possibillities, probabillities as the 4D causal universe we are living in, it is the signals that we receive in our boxes , our personalities, our ego's that we are thransforming into views, opinions, theories and so on, that is why we are discussing here our points of view, really POINTS of view because it is the lines formed by these points that we are aware of as our "reality", that is made of the historical points perceived by our senses. You menstion that is no prison of awareness, but isn't your own wish that there is not the only reason to mention this aren't we all claustrofobic and it is our wishfull thinking that our perceptions leading to the awareness and the consciousness let us escape from this prison that is life, with its beginning and his end (again a box), by thinking that we have a way to escape from this prison we are searching for life after death, eternity and so on, we think we become divine, but it is US who invented this idea.
Consciousness for me is the contact between the non causal total simultaneity outside (the curtain), forming there a life-line that we experience here as reality. Perhaps this non causal total simultaneity in another dimension is the same as Edwin's original awareness, the same as all the religious feelings in the world, I just don't know, I just can continue to implement my thoughts and listen to others.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:05 GMT
May I suggest the following resolution of the consciousness/awareness "controversy"?
I believe that what we call awareness is our sensing of the presence of the past in Nature (as Rupert Sheldrake called it). Since it is quite probable that all events in nature are stored, we are simply sensing some of them, and of course, the more recent events are easier to sense. But often when I walk in a very old city, which I enjoy enormously, the reason I enjoy it has to do with my sensing some part of that remote past life.
Again, in light of the new formalism, there seems to be no real "mystery" to me.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT
Lev,
You say "awareness is our sensing of the presence of the past in Nature."
Absolutely not! I can see why you think as you do. Awareness is of NOW. The past is simply recorded information, and that is as you say, simply a matter of information processing. I have written a number of books on information processing and understand it well. No one understands how we experience 'now'.
Comparative awareness is a difficult if not impossible thing to discuss.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
Lev,
I do not understand this?:
"May I suggest the following resolution of the consciousness/awareness "controversy"?
I believe that what we call awareness is our sensing of the presence of the past in Nature (as Rupert Sheldrake called it). Since it is quite probable that all events in nature are stored, we are simply sensing some of them, and of course, the more recent events are easier to sense. But often when I walk in a very old city, which I enjoy enormously, the reason I enjoy it has to do with my sensing some part of that remote past life."
A question: Do you take awareness or consciousness or this 'sensing' to be a 'given'? My point is: Is your method of analysis directed toward explaining how this 'sensing' came about or is it aimed more toward how to analyze that which we have for whatever reason?
James
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
Edwin,
What do you mean by "Awareness is of NOW.?
Of course, we are sensing now, but the question is What are we sensing?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
Edwin,
Sorry to let my busy little brain get in the way of your solipsistic little visions.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Edwin,
You completely talked past Lev's quite capable description of the evolutionary landscape and its role in awareness.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
"A question: Do you take awareness or consciousness or this 'sensing' to be a 'given'? My point is: Is your method of analysis directed toward explaining how this 'sensing' came about or is it aimed more toward how to analyze that which we have for whatever reason?"
James,
I didn't get what you are asking, but I take the events "to be a 'given'", the basic stuff of reality. The rest as they say is "history". ;-)
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:55 GMT
Lev,
"I didn't get what you are asking, but I take the events "to be a 'given'", the basic stuff of reality. The rest as they say is "history". ;-)"
Ok, let me strech myself and go out on my limb: It is the rest that I was asking about. The events are given's. They are the information. They are what are observed and worked with to analyze patterns. In other words, they are effects. They are not causes. No one knows what cause is. With regard to awareness, information is effects, awareness is the combination (meaning covering both mechanical type effects and intelligence type effects) of cause discerning meaning from information. Again, no one knows what cause is.
This discussion, along with the rest of the operation of the universe makes clear that cause is not the mechanical inventions put forward by theoretical physics. Those inventions are for the sole purpose of modeling mechanical activity. No intelligence or awareness is involved in the models of theoretical physics (except for Edwin's). Do you believe your new method of analysis deals only with learning the orderliness of the effects of cause that yields awareness or do you believe that your new method of analysis deals with cause, in the sense of the origin of the ability to discern meaning from information, also?
Well, I guess that should be cryptic enough to pass as saying something smart. :)
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 16:56 GMT
Tom
As usual, when discourse fails you insult. We know that we see the world quite differently. What is your point?
Lev,
Can we just agree to disagree? You say "Of course, we are sensing now, but the question is What are we sensing?" That is your question, and it is relevant to physics, but it is not the question that I and others are concerned with. You ignore the mystery of the fact that we *are* aware, as if that is obvious ('of course') and self-explanatory. It is not to me. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
Edwin,
As usual, the discourse fails, because you make these pompous statements of your personal beliefs which you declare ought to be taken as objective. That's my point.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
Tom,
Perhaps we can get back to the main topic of this thread, which had to do with the Higgs.
According to reports I read yesterday, many at CERN are starting to realize that the Higgs is not showing up at the LHC. Nor SUSY.
In addition, recent experiments have shown de Broglie-like 'particle AND wave' properties that contradict the Copenhagen interpretation of 'particle OR wave' that you seem to place your faith in.
So my theory, which you seem to think is merely solipsistic and a matter of personal belief, is making predictions that are matched by experiments. How's your theory doing?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
Edwin,
When your theory gets beyond the self promotion stage, you be sure and let me know. As it is, I have pointed out the glaring technical flaws in at least a couple of experimental results that you claim support your theory. The most audacious claim I can recall is your attempt to link orbital electron motion in a controlled environment to your "C-field."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Edwin and James,
Look, we, and I mean all of us, are not yet in a position to discuss the causes of it all: by far, we have not reached the level of knowledge that would qualify us to venture productively into that domain. First, we have to understand--in the language accessible to us NOW--what the reality is all about. There is no point in going beyond that UNTIL we are educated enough, and that will take at least half a century. I am convinced that science MUST proceed in stages: we cannot jump over several stages because we are not equipped with the necessary conceptual "tools", without which we are not talking science.
Incidentally, that is why I dislike the present *extensive* ventures into the origins of the universe: we need to go there but only after we have a satisfactory scientific language, which I doubt we have yet.
We are not that rich or that moral to allow ourselves this luxury. First, it is not productive at all, and second we should rather put more energy into organizing our quite primitive social affairs in order.
The pious lamentations are for poets and not for scientists.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 17:57 GMT
Lev,
"we cannot jump over several stages because we are not equipped with the necessary conceptual "tools", without which we are not talking science."
My message did not have to do with jumping of stages. It had to do with separating knowledge into that which we know and that which we do not know. We know effects, we do not know cause. I presume the stages you mention are the stages of effects?
"Incidentally, that is why I dislike the present *extensive* ventures into the origins of the universe: we need to go there but only after we have a satisfactory scientific language, which I doubt we have yet."
I was not asking about the origin of the universe. I was giving my opinion about the mechanical type causes put forward by theoretical physics for the purpose of writing equations that model mechanical type patterns of activity that occur in the universe.
"We are not that rich or that moral to allow ourselves this luxury. First, it is not productive at all, and second we should rather put more energy into organizing our quite primitive social affairs in order."
This is an academic opinion. What I mean by that is: There are people who must deal with the great diversity of beliefs in the world and there are those who speak in terms of lofty goals as viewed from their perspective. That which may make the individual soul feel moral may have little or even nothing to do with dealing with the great diversity of beliefs in the world.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT
"My message did not have to do with jumping of stages. It had to do with separating knowledge into that which we know and that which we do not know. We know effects, we do not know cause. I presume the stages you mention are the stages of effects?"
James,
I do not distinguish the two.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
Lev,
I presume that your position is that we do know what cause is. By the way, I remain very interested in your work. I am eager to move beyond the limitations of counting things.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
"I presume that your position is that we do know what cause is"
James,
My "position", as I already mentioned, is that we cannot address ALL causes at a particular point in history, let's say now. And that has been the running thread throughout the history of science (just read Newton, Einstein, and others).
But ... I do believe that gradually we should be able to get to the promised land and understand most of the mysteries.I just don't like talking about the digestion of an apple before I tasted it. ;-)
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
Lev,
"We are not that rich or that moral to allow ourselves this luxury" is a rather pious pronouncement itself. And I do not agree that "There is no point in going beyond that UNTIL we are educated enough, and that will take at least half a century." FQXi is not about waiting to be "educated", it is about finding answers to fundamental questions. These answers, if found, will then probably be used to educate others. And saying "at least half a century" seems to imply that you know more than I think you know. But good luck with your theory.
Tom,
*Every* theory begins with and absolutely requires self-promotion. Theories that challenge the established way of thinking require even more such effort. And theories from persons outside of the establishment even more. So of course I'm promoting my theory. How's your theory doing?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:36 GMT
Edwin,
I now recalled why I stopped discussions with you more than a year ago.
I don't think you care enough to read carefully the posts by others unless you plan to use the authors in the future to your own advantage. I guess this is the "regular" business ethics. ;-)
How unfortunate and how deeply insulting!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
Lev'
Do you know any cause? What is it or what are they?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 18:55 GMT
My theory survives on its own merits, thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Friends,
Edwin asked about the topic of this thread - the Higgs.
Have you read Philip Gibbs' latest
viXra posts? Our best LHC and Tevatron data seems to most-prefer a non-Standard Model (perhaps SUSY) Higgs around 140 GeV, although that same data might even make a weaker case for a Standard Model Higgs around 118 GeV (close to LEP II's maximal energy reach in which they were starting to see the edge of a 'signal' - recall that an electron-positron supercollider like LEP II would see some Electroweak signals more clearly than the proton supercolliders like Tevatron and LHC because it does not have as much background from jet production).
Edwin - The Higgs is a theoretical quantum field origin of rest mass. Newton's and Einstein's versions of Gravity both require mass, but neither can define the origin of rest mass. If the Higgs does not exist, then we still need to explain the origin of rest mass. IMO, even a composite pseudoscalar such as the Pion of Nuclear Physics or the Technipion of Technicolor STILL requires a fundamental origin of rest mass from somewhere. Consider that the Pion derives its effective rest mass from the sum of kinetic, potential and rest mass energies of its components: quarks and gluons, and thus requires an even more fundamental origin of rest mass. I do not see an end to this circular argument ad infinitum unless at least one fundamental scalar associted with rest mass actually exists. Please consider that this concern is generally different from and independent of Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 19:46 GMT
Lev,
You were the one to start this series of exchanges by claiming to have a structural explanation of awareness, and ending up with your remark about pious lamentations. I have studied your essay and do not believe you are on the right track, but I do wish you the best in promoting your ideas. Like Tom, you and I are so far apart that little worthwhile can come from these interactions. I'm sorry that having supported myself for three decades in "business" (ugh, nasty) offends you. You might read Thomas Sowell "Intellectuals and Society" for a different understanding of these issues.
Tom,
I'm glad that your theory is doing well. I've looked at it and have a few problems, but FQXi is an opportunity for all of us to put forth our ideas.
Ray,
Yes I have been reading viXra posts. You and I agree that only time will tell. All I can do is predict what my theory tells me. When I began such predictions I was not quite a lone voice in the wilderness, but the odds were certainly against me. Now the odds seem to be changing. We'll just have to see what happens. It is appropriate that those who depend upon the existence of Higgs or SUSY try as hard as possible to find these phenomena in the data. I do not have the expertise to critique Phil Gibbs work, and I agree that his work is a valuable contribution (even if it does come from outside the establishment.)
You remark that "The Higgs is a theoretical quantum field origin of rest mass." That is, in my mind, the problem. The quantum field theory is, as Zee laments in "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" founded on the harmonic paradigm. He claims that "we have not been able to get away from the basic notions of oscillations and wave packets." My theory does get away from this basis, which of course makes it a very hard sell, since that has been the reigning paradigm for over half a century.
Thank you for bringing this back to technical issues. The personal 'nyah, nyah' was getting out of hand.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 20:15 GMT
Well Edwin,
I'm sorry I paid some attention to your pronouncements. That will teach me a final lesson.
Thanks for the lesson!
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Edwin,
You said to Lev "I'm sorry that having supported myself for three decades in "business" (ugh, nasty) offends you."
I'm also one of those 'nasty' businessmen. In a lousy economy (my market peaked in 2007 - I'm fighting to get it back, but the real estate market affects us & is considerably weaker today), we still employ 24 people, and give good benefits. At some point in the game, guys like you and I create the jobs that provide the taxes that allow these professors to receive research grants...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 23:35 GMT
Thank you, Ray, for helping us, professors!
I didn't know how generous and unselfish you are!
Now we all will know.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 2, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
Hi Lev,
I used to be a college physics professor (of lowest rank - no tenure) during the school year, and performed research with NASA during the Summers. Being a CEO is much the same. Leading a company is a combination of teaching skills and measuring expectations. I wish I could be more generous - these are difficult times, and many of us are just surviving.
I have not explicitly included awareness in my TOE theories. My ideas include self-similar scales, which implies a Multiverse, and 'awareness' may derive from tachyonic feedback loops (recall that the vacuum has a negative vev - similar to tachyons with negative mass-squared) throughout the Multiverse. Or awareness could just be a bio-chemical effect - my year-old pit-bull/ labrador puppy is as aware and intelligent as some people...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 2, 2011 @ 15:52 GMT
Hi, Lev, Edwin, Ray, James and Tom, Our original thread was indeed the Higgs Boson, then we devellopped a branch on this tree because of our common search for the origin og our consciousness, if we cannot agree on this subject is only natural because we all have a different viewpoints, and no one can say that his thinking is a LAW. Lev told us that all events are stored somewhere, but also that that was the reason that the latest events were the easiest to recall, that I think is questionable. Edwin sais that the past is recorded information (so they agree there) and then he claims that awareness is NOW, again another questionable opinion. Lev then mentions that events have to be a given , I question by whom or what, , then James mentions that events are information leading to effects, but indeed asks himself what is the CAUSE, or CAUSES of these events are they mechanical inventions by ourselves ? so leading back to our own "solipsistic" ego as mentioned by Tom ? and so we go on ...Edwin again points out the mystery of the fact that we are "AWARE" and indeed as LEV tells us we as for now are missing the language to express ourselves in an understandable way ,and comes back to the fact that we are aware of effects and will always be in search of the cause, mean here the CAUSE, (Chicken and egg) the beginning that is not distinguished and will never be distinguished, please let us accept other views even if they are so different from the ones we are AWARE of ouselves in our box, the walls of tour boxes must be permeable of all signals even if we cannot find the origin of these signals, perhaps we have to accept them just as signals, effects.
So some of us keep searching for a Higgs Boson, some for SUSY, some for the TOE, in one hundred years again scientists will say to each other : "We are on the treshold of anew area", and everybody aware of his own NOW experience, and roaming around with "new" ideas, doesnt he want to be an Einstein of his area ? Isn't it the total of our brainstorming together in this space of time that can lead to a new (for today) view of reality as we experience it and give just one explanation more of the infinity that we do not know ?
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
"...then James mentions that events are information leading to effects, but indeed asks himself what is the CAUSE, or CAUSES of these events are they mechanical inventions by ourselves?
Without going back and re-reading what I said, I assume that I need to clarify my meaning: Information is about effects. Information is a report about what has already occurred and is never about cause except indirectly. What I mean by indirectly is: The patterns we observe in effects tell us important information about what a cause does.
One effect may appear, since we never see cause, to lead to another effect, but, that never justifies calling an effect a cause. No one knows what cause is. Finally, the causes put forward by theoretical physics are inventions. None of them are real. They are names with units assigned to them and artificially inserted into equations so that one may discuss the equation as if one knows what cause is. An artificially inserted unit can be identified by the fact that it is indefinable in terms of the properties, and their units, of empirical evidence.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 03:49 GMT
James,
OK, about the "causes".
With the ETS formalism, I hypothesize that, for the first time, the events (and hence the "information") is the "cause" of what we then see in space: they define what we see before we see it.
Now, one can ask "who" produces events, to which my incomplete answer is "class representation mechanism". About the *origin* of the latter I can't say much except that it is a very primordial informational mechanism/structure emerging with the Universe.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Lev,
You are correct. I stand corrected. I still need to learn more about your new method of analysis. Thank you.
Lev said: "With the ETS formalism, I hypothesize that, for the first time, the events (and hence the "information") is the "cause" of what we then see in space: they define what we see before we see it."
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
James,
you asked me about an experiment demonstrating gravitational time dilation and about the anomalous orbit of mercury. I do not disagree that gravitational time dilation appears to occur and can be measured. (But time is not being stretched and space-time is not being curved IMHO except hypothetically.) The experiment is quite complicated so I would rather not go into that but deal with mercury and hope that it suffices to explain what I think is and is not occurring.
IMHO Space-time does not exist except as a reconstructed manifestation of reality. As discussed. And as a mathematical model. So curved space-time is not the -cause- of the particular orbit of a planet,as the planet is not in space-time but in a unitemporal space. Einstein's mathematics only fits what is happening to the EM but it does not explain the underlying cause in object reality, as object reality is not a part of his model at all. Though mathematically complete it is not a complete model of reality.
What uni-temporal space contains instead is the data from which the space-time manifestation can be constructed. Any alteration to the constant regular transmission of that data between leaving the object of origin and arriving at the observer/detector will alter -when- the data arrives and hence what will be observed. (It is what is observed that is generally considered to be reality.)
So something in the uni-temporal environment of -space- is affecting the orbit which acts to give the appearance of curved space-time but is not itself curved space-time. Now the planet mercury is nearest to the very large body of the sun and the sun's Object universal trajectory at all scales, through the unobserved medium of space can be imagined to cause some disturbance that not only gives a gravitational effect but might also affect the EM data carried by the medium. Alternatively there might still be an as yet undiscovered body, another rock in space, causing the anomaly. The anomaly in the orbit of Uranus led to the discovery of Neptune after all.
I have not really given this matter of mercury's orbit much thought so I will leave it at that. Which might seem unsatisfactory but I think it is better not to know than accept what is ultimately a very neat, very clever but ultimately incorrect explanation.Though I will reiterate I am not disputing gravitational time dilation nor the fact that Einstein's model of curved space-time fits. Only that that incomplete model of reality does not provide the underlying cause of the observed effect it matches.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 3, 2011 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Georgina,
My purpose in choosing the Pound-rebka experiments, aside from quick access to information about it, had to do with relativity type effects occurring very accurately as predicted over very short distance, extremely short time, and without observer perspective dependency. I would have restricted its use to the question of whether or not it fit with your explanation for relativity type effects.
As an aside: It is an experiment that was performed for the purpose of testing a prediction of general relativity, as you know. It succeeded in confirming that prediction. From my perspective, the irony is that it could have been interpreted with equal justification either for or against general relativity. My own view is that it could still be held up as evidence for proving the relativity theory is wrong. For what it is worth, that is my perspective on it and the way that I have written on it.
My purpose for putting forward Mercury's perihilion was that it does occur a large distance away and it is strongly affected by influences attributed to relativity theory. So, it represented concerns that I have under very different circumstances from the Pound-rebka experiment. My concerns had to do with understanding how your explanation could be fitted to what is observed. You take the position that relativity effects occur as a result of things that happen to photons between the time, and from the position, they are emitted to the time that we receive them.
Here is the main point: Mercury's position with respect to the Earth varies as it moves around the sun. Yet, so far as I know, the Perihilion is not a variable due to that changing of position or observer perspective. I am discounting the more minor effects that are easily explanable by the influences of other planets or even other possible variables due to the sun such as its shape or ability to bend light. So, it wasn't so much a question of what causes the perihilion, but rather how your view would address it.
As another aside: My own view is that it is due to reasons that run contrary to those put forward by relativity theory. In the cases of both the perilhilion and pound-Rebka, time-dilation is not the cause. Again, that is my perspective and the manner in which I have written about it. This why I refer to relativity type effects instead of relativity effects.
I hope I was able to make my intentions clear. I do not presume to prejudge your view. I wanted to have you offer it. I have difficulty enough explaining my own.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT
OK James,
Now I understand your choice of the mercury -and- the experiment. I don't think distance qualitatively alters what is occurring. These are my thought. Disturbance of the medium of uni-temporal space in the vicinity of a large body is causing alteration of the path/spreading of the EM and consequently alteration of wavelength IMHO. Giving the same effect as hypothetical curvature of space-time.
The body is moving in a spatial direction within uni-temporal space that can not be given within the 3n plus 1 dimensional space-time construct. Which sounds strange but even if the Earth is considered by an observer to be stationary from his viewpoint, it has an unseen universal trajectory that can be considered occurring over many different scales.
That entire object universal movement is not the perspective of any observer and is no part of the mathematical model used to model relativity. The inertia of a body due to resistance to alteration of its entire unobserved Object universal trajectory (even when it appears to an observer to be stationary) is not part of the block time universe model and inertial mass appears to be without cause. Inertia increases with increasing velocity as an acceleration is alteration of object universal trajectory through uni-temporal space. The greater the acceleration the greater the resistance to change of trajectory, again agreeing with Einstein.
I do not know if the disturbance of the medium of unobserved uni-temporal space by the Object universal trajectory of the sun is sufficient on its own to explain the orbit of mercury. I just haven't thought about it sufficiently. Which is why I suggested there might be another unknown influence. But what is certain in my mind is that it is not -caused- by curvature of space-time. Though curved space-time mathematically fits the effect.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 00:42 GMT
Georgina,
I have been slow to come around to understanding your viewpoint. Now I see that your solution applies to both situtations. I guess the disturbance of the medium remains an open question but no more open than the spacetime model. Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear James,
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider what I have been saying.
I would just like to add that the existence of space-time outside of the observer reconstruction of reality and the mathematical model is no longer open as a possibility for me.
1.Considering it to have objective existence leads to time paradoxes.
2.As there is non simultaneity it does not allow singular sequential unidirectional causality, and thus unidirectional passage of time.
3.It does not allow the potential for free will as everything is predetermined.
4.It does not explain inertial mass or gravitational mass only the effect of gravity.
5.It contradicts QM.
That may not be the comprehensive list but enough for now.
The construct I have developed on this site overcomes all of those problems while still allowing things to be as they are observed, and so still fitting Einstein's mathematical models.The mathematics of space-time has correlation to the observed image reality but not the underlying origin of that observed reality. The unobserved uni-temporal Object reality is where causality is played out, rather than just observed after the fact, in a reconstruction formed by processing of received data, which also makes it a temporal fabrication.
James, I am aware that this is quite different from your own thinking.I said to Edwin I can not rule out a role for cosmic consciousness but it is not necessary to include it to have a working model. So it is not included. In the same way it is not necessary to include cosmic intelligence or love for the model to work. So it is not included. I can not prove they are not within the object reality but I do not need to include them in the model for it to work to fit observations and overcome the paradoxes and unanswered questions left by Einstein's models.
Thanks once again for your time and effort to understand my way of thinking.
Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 16:03 GMT
Hi Georgina, Since there is no simultaneity possible (fully agree) in our universe, we will never be able indeed as observers to be aware of the cause(s) that are at the origin of an event, therefore we invented our mathematics and theories, do you see a theoretic possibillity where causality is outruled and so simultaneity is possible ? I know that every theory is just an effort to explain our "reality" but anyway...
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 22:49 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
yes, that is what I have been trying to adequately and acceptably describe for a number of years now. There is non simultaneity within the universe that we observe because of the time dimension artifact; that is incorporated into the observer's experience of reality due to non infinite data transmission speed. However there is no time dimension within the space in which the sources of the data exists, the objects.
Everything in that unobserved reality can and does only exist simultaneously as there is no time dimension in that space and so no other time at which to exist. There is still passage of time due to change in arrangement of the objects particles, and wave media, (all of the stuff) within that uni-temporal space.
There are the events as we observe them due to data input. That data being from events that have already occurred in uni-temporal space, and so are a prewritten future, prior to becoming present-now of an observer. However also there is the unwritten future, that which has not yet happened in uni-temporal space and so has not yet provided any data to the environment. That unwritten future is missing from space-time which only models the -observed manifestation- of reality from pre-existing data.
That unwritten future permits temporally unidirectional causality, not subject to relativity and non simultaneity, and uni-directional passage of time. As the continual spatial rearrangement of the contents of the uni-temporal Object universe is -not- the time dimension of the space-time observer created manifestation.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Georgina, It is a relief to read your post, the unwritten future you mention can exist in an extra dimension that we cannot observe, but it is simply there, therefore perhaps it is not the unidirectional causality that is involved but all the unwritten futures , and I mean here all possible futures are present , every cause has more probable effects, so every event in our universe (that can not be observed simultaneously by different observers) is the cause of almost infinite unwritten futures, that as a matter of fact are already created but not yet existing in our 4D universe. Could our consciousness play a role in the writing (perhaps through free will) of one of these (for each individual separate) futures ?
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
There is a saying "he who knows his destination and heads straight to it will arrive quickly; he who knows his destination but takes the odd wrong turning along the way will still arrive but be wiser for the experience." I have gone the long way round! I have been trying to understand time, and in doing so have found answers to other foundational questions. In order to do that a particular understanding of time is required and a particular arrangement of the foundation of reality is required.There is no need to have additional dimensions, realms , multi-verses or supernatural agents for the construct to function to answer the questions and overcome the paradoxes.
I have previously argued for an additional spatial dimension because it had become apparent to me that the passage of time is actually continual spatial changes of arrangement that occurs even when unobservable, within the space-time seen by any observer. Hence it is not represented by the 3n plus 1 dimensional spatial structure. But that is a problem of the dimensional structure of space-time only representing what an observer observes, and not the totality of what is occurring unobserved. This can't be addressed by just adding another spatial dimension or making the time dimension spatial. That was a failed attempt to represent the object universe. Such an extra dimension could represent the historical progress of the object universe along a sequence of arrangements, but would be entirely imaginary. Only the latest arrangement actually exists the other have been "recycled" into the latest.
It is not necessary to imagine a dimension in which unwritten futures are already written. An open future is just that completely open to possibility and probability and a host of variables and parameters know, uncertain and unknown. To suddenly introduce another dimension of written unwritten futures is like the multi verse all over again. Its just not required.
How the dice objects will fall is not prewritten in the data of the Object universe but a matter of all interacting variables and parameters. How the dice is -observed- depends upon the state of the dice being prewritten into the potential sensory data within the environment. How it is written in the EM does not -determine- how the dice is, but is a -reflection- of how it is and determines how it will be -observed- to be. We can not access the object itself but know only what we are "told" via the received data.
Potential futures to be observed by ourselves and others are encoded in the potential sensory data within the environment awaiting interception by the observer/detector. It is everywhere. It is not -all- futures though because new potentially observed futures are being continuously added to the data pool as events occur within Object reality space and the data about them is formed.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 21:14 GMT
To clarify what I meant re extra spatial dimension: the imagined extra dimension would not be an extra dimension to space-time, but a historical time line charting the object universal arrangement in sequence, that co-existed as the various space-time image realties were observed.( Only we can't actually know the object universe arrangement!) Any way, that way of thinking about representing it is not necessary for the solution either.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I fully agree with the “presence” of potentially futures and observers, even if they do not yet exist their probability of existence is there in what we call the future in our causal life-line. The existence of a possibility/probability is a different awareness as the existence of the past, where the possibilities have become events in the awareness of observers (both from the past), it is difficult to describe these future possibilities, that however they “EXIST” (some already in our minds) are not a reality because they don’t make part of the past. So there are in this way of thinking two ways of existence, those from the past and those from the future, so both not existing .
We explain the past as events that we were aware of , when you take in mind that each of us is a different observer (the rainbow is different for everybody) in this Block Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/philosophy_of_space_and_time (thank you Pentcho Valev)) where as you indicate also there is no time connection between objects , we also have to imagine these probable Block Universes for the future, I agree with you that the name “parallel universe” is science fiction like , we do not call the past a parallel universe neither and like the future we are not (yet) able to reach it.
So the past and the future have the same value, like birth and death define an event , the event of our lives, interesting is that in this view every observer has an unique point of view and place within his universe (again the rainbow) so every individual is unique because of the fact that a human being is developing itself by the data (signals) that come in through his five senses, elaborated by our minds and so creating consciousness, all these events come from the past isn’t it , but our consciousness has the power to make a combination of the past and the future.
The fact that each individual has different input and so is unique means also that his interventions in the outside world are unique, perhaps it seems as if all this is predestined because of the fact that the event-history created a fix life-line, but interaction between all these different life-lines creates enough space for so called free will.
Take all the individuals together and we will remark that they are becoming together an entity with a drive that seems uncontrollable for the parts of it, but now I am roaming around ; let us stick to the subject.
Keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
Forgot to mention that also the past had different possibilities to arrive at the situation of ???, so the "sybils" from the future exist also for the past.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
I am still not sure that I have adequately communicated the important difference of that which will be expereinced because it has already happened in unitemporal unobserved space, from an imagined future.It has not happened in the past but ahead of the will be observer's present.( As the observed present lags behind due to data transmission delay and processing time.) The past is that which has already ceased to be a present-now but has been expereinced or has ceased to be a possible present-now for the observer in question but did occur in unitemporal space.
This prewritten future is nothing to do with possibility or probability because the event although not yet expereinced has happened unobserved. It can not be unwritten.
The other kind of future the open, unwritten future. It is an imagining with no actual existence, anywhere/when. It is possibility and probability. Through deliberate action a person can alter the variables in favour of a future that has been imagined. This allows free will to have influence on the universe, as the whole future is not prewritten and unchangeable.
This is an important difference between the construct I am explaining and fixed and eternally unchangeable space-time in which the observer is a mere passive recipient of what is. The arrangement outlined here has partially non determinism. Though the changes that can occur are still constrained by physical limitations and all of the interacting variables and parameters, known , uncertain and unknown.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Georgina,
You explained very well the « events » that are in the future of an observer, but already in the past for another observer who is closer to the event (or perhaps moving at the speed of light…). There is a future waiting for us which is already the past for others. This is also the view of the block universe, where there is no time between all the events , so they are all simultaneous, the location (distance of the event) of the observer indicates the “moment” of his event-awareness , the observer himself has his life-line, the follow up of the events he is conscious of. That is what I see as your explanation of the future and the past and until here I follow you and agree.
Now I go a little further and would like to place the “NOW” moment of the observer, as the centre of a cone (the space-time cone), up is the future and down the past, so if we are “aware” of just one life-line that is crossing this NOW moment of the cone, there are infinite more possibilities (probabilities) to create lines that are crossing in this cone the same now moment (do you see it ?) this is what I call other possible life-lines that are not part of the awareness of the observer but EXIST as probabilities, the cone is defined by the speed of light ( Minkowski diagram) so involves all the possible observable events , both in the past and the future.
You indicate that the past is unchangeable, of course this is the most logic point of view because there is until now no possibility to change our life-line , but in my opinion (it is just a theory and no security) all possibilities are part of reality, so real, as we say “there are a lot of roads leading to Rome”.
So , my dear Georgina, on this part I hope that I understood well your opinion, and also that you understand mine, yours is the most logic anyhow and is the one that we perceive each day, but agrees with the origin of mine, however I also accept that I have no experimental proof, so it is not scientific but more philosophical.
Furthermore you say “The past is what has ceased to be present”, this is interesting it means that you accept a limit to our universe, the signals at the limit of the Minkowski cone are the last signals of our future events, but the cone is expanding at the speed of light so…, so far for the signals of events that have passed us in the center of the cone, but these signals continue to travel in the universe and become past after our Now moment for them, so the past as I feel it is always existing.
Keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 03:48 GMT
There is still significant skepticism that a Higgs field is really the effect on 1D fibers of space-time interconnecting every particle of mass. But let me make this argument.
Albert Einstein talked about trains going by the observer at v = 0.5c or some other fraction of the speed of light. Perhaps the observer can see inside of the train where there is a laser that emits a beam upwards from the floor. The beam hits a mirror on the ceiling and reflects downward to the floor. It's probably a dusty train, so many of the photons are scattered out the window so that the observer on the ground can see what looks like,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time-dilation-002.svg
But the observer on the train only sees,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time-dilation-001.svg
They both agree that the speed of light must be the same for both, which results in time dilation,
\Delta t' = \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}
Time dilation does not rely upon photons from a laser being scattered out the window. In fact, the train could be dark; the train could be held at 0 degrees kelvin so that it doesn't emit any light. Time dilation does not depend upon photons. Relativistic time dilation only depends upon relative motion. How does anything on the ground know that the train is moving relativistically to the earth's surface? If there happens to be a wall or a mountain in the way of the train, I guarantee you that the train and the obstruction will know about each other, and that the train will strike the obstruction with a very large amount of energy.
How does nature know how much energy the train should strike the wall or mountain with?
Why does the earth remain in orbit when the earth and the sun cannot see each other without waiting 8 minutes each way? Someone is going to say, "curvature of space-time".
The void of space doesn't just give you space-time because it seems logical to do so. Space-time is made out of something. That something really should be 1D fibers of space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Fundamentally, time and space do not make sense quantum mechanically and on a purely electromagnetic basis IN the absence of gravity (and gravitational relations/effects). Intelligibility, perception, and rationality come into play, as touch is linked with gravity and with the visual consequences of touch in (and with) time.
Distance in/of space is key in physics. gravity, electromagnetism, and inertia are all key to distance in/of space. How does Einsteing address this? He can't, and he doesn't.
Einstein's theory of gravity ultimately fails on the basis of instantaneity alone.
The real understanding of physics demonstrates more unity (or more order) from or relative to order. Complexity/variability and order/sameness ultimately balance.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 2, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Hi Eckard,
You inquired about the image caption on this thread."Icanhascheeseburger.com" shows cute animal pictures, mostly cats and kittens, that visitors can add funny captions to.
I think for the image on this thread I might add "Oh no, I think its eaten the Higgs particles, can anyone find them?"
Does look remarkably like a giant octopus, that just might bite.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
On that site, by the way, there is a picture of a very annoyed cat and the caption "Tha onli thing I kno bout tha speed of light is it gits here way too early in tha morning."
"it moovz wif much 2 much kwikness." (Which I find funny.)
The "phonetic" spelling is a characteristic of the site. Cats can't spell either, and thats funny too.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 6, 2011 @ 12:23 GMT
Dear Georgina, Dear John,
I would like to thank you for trying to explain to me what "HAZ" meant. Maybe I did it still not yet get quite correctly. Anyway, it seems to express that presently a majority has been at least not very confident that the LHC will find Higgs and SUSY.
I did not comment on that while I may reiterate: I see some reasons why they will perhaps never be found. Admittedly, such guess of mine is irrelevant. I prefer focusing on work by Shtyrkov, by Van Flandern, by many others mainly those who are related to NPA, and on the petition concerning 100 years of twin paradox.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
Dear Wilhelmuus,
I do understand what you are saying and agree that we can think of events as light cones and the observer can move in space and experience different events than he might standing still.
However you still seem to have only taken on board half of what I am saying and not the significant implication of passage of time being completely independent of the observer while perceived passage of events is dependent upon observer reference frame. Both occurring together. So the future is not entirely written because events are occurring entirely independently of what the observer will observe from data formed from events that have already occurred.
report post as inappropriate
Hans van Leunen wrote on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 09:50 GMT
I always wonder about the requirement for a Higgs field and Higgs particle. Particle lenses exist now for a century and they prove that the fields raised by electrodes can curve the paths of particles and cause that the shapes of point images (the so called point spread functions) are not spatially invariant. This occurs without the intervention of masses. These phenomena are exactly the habits that are usually imputed to the gravitation field,and thus indirectly to the presence of masses. However, this is incorrect. Fields are perfectly capable of creating curvature and the gravitation field appears no more and no less than the administrator of the local metric that describes the local curvature. It enables the location of actual or virtual ceneters of mass and the attacment of mass values to these anchor points. In this way a virtual mass can be attatched to the curvature that is caused by the horizon of a black hole without the need that there is any sign of matter inside that hole. No one can prove whether there is matter inside the black hole, because light cannot pass this horizon. One can as well assume that the geometry causes the virtual mass. (Reverse the cause for the gravitation)
So, who needs a Higgs boson? Fields other than the gravitation field and the Higgs field are capable of creating the observed curvature. Scientists must invent a better solution. It is enough to find a way to describe how ordinary EM fields (and may be other fields) cause curvature and thus virtual mass.
report post as inappropriate
RSS feed | RSS help
