Is 'time' a measurable variable?

[Erasmus00]

First, in my representation, momentum in the tau direction is rest mass and not energy.

 

Rest mass is one part of the total energy. Building a model in which some of the energy is conjugate to time seems limited, furthermore it can only work in specific frames (the rest frame of the object).

 

Uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics are the result of specific symmetry operations/symmetries. The generator of a symmetry and the symmetry form a conjugate pair. For instance, the x component of momentum generates translations in x. x and Px are canonically conjugate.

 

Now, energy (total energy, NOT rest energy) generates translations in time, and hence we expect energy is canonically conjugate to time. Your relation, with only rest energy, can only hold in the rest frame.

 

Furthermore, vacuum fluctuations are a consequence of virtual interactions which are as applicable in my representation as they are in the standard representation. With regard to the accuracy with which rest mass is known, (where half life is considered to be the conjugate of rest mass) check out the estimated half life of a proton.

 

I think you misunderstand what is meant by uncertainty. If we look at a proton through the eyes of QCD we see virtual particle pairs popping up all the time. These pairs, while in existance, do change the mass of a proton. Over very short time scales the mass is quite uncertain, as many different particle pairs could be in existance. This is different then the concept of a half life.

 

You are totally doing the problem incorrectly. You have to watch yourself very carefully. It is the laws of physics which remain unchanged in such a transformation, not your measurements.

 

Yes, but the metric contracted over the dual forms:

 

[math]g_{\alpha}_{\beta}dx^{\alpha}dx^{\beta}[/math]

 

is coordinate invariant under the proper transformations (in this case the Poincarre group). It has to be, by deffintion. Yours is not, as I indicated in my last post. Therefore, yours is not actually a metric.

 

Since all forces arise through massless exchange forces, the stable states of all your measuring devices end up shifting in exactly the way as do the solutions of Maxwell equation and it turns out that the laws of physics simply are not a function of your frame of reference. (You have to work it out, not just presume the answers.)

 

I'm not presuming the answers. I'm pointing out that one specific measurement, the metric contracted over the dual forms, HAS to be invariant.

If it isn't, you don't have a valid metric.

 

In your form, the Poincarre group alters your metric, in Einstein's form it does not. I'm not suggesting that Maxwell's equations aren't invariant, I'm saying your metric isn't.

 

Consider the following, two events with a propertime seperation of 5m. (In units where c =1). In frame A the events are 3m apart. In frame B, moving at a speed of 1/2, the events are 4m apart.

 

In your metric, A calculates [math]{\Delta}t^2 = 34 m^2 [/math] while B calculates [math]{\Delta}t^2 = 41 m^2 [/math] This is unacceptable for metric calculations.

 

So we are back to "clocks measure time by definition are we? So be it, I guess you just can't follow what I am saying.

 

No, I said that physicists are well aware that clocks measure proper time and are quite used to converting between various frames. You "disagree" with a misrepresentation.

-Will

[Doctordick]

I am sorry Will, but you are entirely too trusting of authority. And I am also afraid that your knowledge of the foundations of physics is a little on the meager side. Everything you are doing is based upon the presumption that Einstein's perspective is the correct point of view. I am trying to show you an alternate perspective which solves all of the current problems in modern physics.

Consider the following, two events with a propertime seperation of 5m. (In units where c =1). In frame A the events are 3m apart. In frame B, moving at a speed of 1/2, the events are 4m apart.

I presume you are calling Einstein's invariant interval "propertime separation". The conversion from Einstein's picture to mine is nowhere near as trivial as is suggested by this proposition. Instead of approaching the problem from the direction you wish (which would most probably require a presentation as much as a hundred times the length) I will show you a different proof that my geometry obeys special relativity from a much more basic analysis.

 

Notice that, in my picture, mass does not exist! It is a phenomena brought about by the fact that everything of interest happens to be momentum quantized in the tau direction. By the way, this mass quantization in the tau direction need not be a postulate as all that is really required is one entity in the universe happens to in a momentum quantized state in the tau direction (you could call it a pseudo Higgs boson if you wish). If you calculate the scattering probabilities, you will discover that Bose condensation will eventually yield a whole collection such entities. (Actually a big complex interesting problem there. I have never worked out a mass spectrum but I suspect that if I knew Higgs' work I could work it out. If I were young, I would attack it.) So we are talking about a four dimensional Euclidean universe which contains nothing but what could be called a gas of massless entities essentially analogous of a photon gas (except for the fact that these pseudo photons don't have any of the inherent qualities of photons beyond momentum which arises out of shift symmetry).

 

The central issue of relativity is that the laws of physics are exactly the same in all coordinate systems. In the common approach to physics, one assumes that the the speed of light is exactly the same in both directions. Now if my frame is moving with respect to your frame, if I so desire, I can calculate the outcome of any experiment I wish as seen from your frame simply by, instead of presuming the speed of light is exactly the same in both direction (with regard to our relative motion) I can presume it goes faster in one direction than in the other. However, when I do that, from the conventional physics perspective, I have to adjust both the readings on my rulers and the readings on my clocks.

 

Now look at exactly the same circumstance under my four dimensional Euclidean coordinate system. Within that system, all exchange forces are mediated by massless entities. As massless entities, their wave functions propagate at exactly the same velocities (in that four dimensional Euclidean frame). It follows that absolutely every stable coherent complex structure transforms in exactly the same manner. Thus we may directly make that calculation with respect any presumed rest frame for the velocity of wave function propagation. In this case, we are taking both rulers and clocks as specific coherent complex structures and not as fundamental measuring devices. You have the freedom to select any specific frame (moving or not with respect to our presumed rest frame) and the calculated results will be exactly the same.

 

Now, what I just said is as true from Einstein's perspective as it is from my perspective; however, there is a very fundamental difference. From Einstein's perspective, physics is put forth in terms of those rulers and clocks, and the laws of physics must be covariant when expressed in those terms. In my perspective, the laws of physics are unbelievably simple and are not put forth in terms of those established rulers and clocks (rulers and clocks are specific solutions to the laws of physics and not fundamental instruments). My approach satisfies the requirement of special relativity (in that the laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems) from an entirely different perspective. It can be demonstrated that my approach yields exactly the same results as Einstein's approach except for a few small details. First, it is not at all in conflict with quantum mechanics, second paths which must be removed from Einstein's picture in an ad hoc manner don't even exist in my picture and finally, gravity can be cast as a geometric effect without violating quantum mechanics in any way.

 

I hope you can comprehend why your complaints against my presentation carry no weight. Everything you say needs to be reevaluated in terms of my picture.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

I am sorry Will, but you are entirely too trusting of authority. And I am also afraid that your knowledge of the foundations of physics is a little on the meager side. Everything you are doing is based upon the presumption that Einstein's perspective is the correct point of view. I am trying to show you an alternate perspective which solves all of the current problems in modern physics.

 

Only one calculation above assumed anything about the truth of Einstein's prespective, which is when I discussed your metric. Furthermore, the only thing I needed was the validity of the Lorentz transformations. You yourself suggested the validity of the lorentz transformations in your new system.

 

I still hold that your metric is NOT invariant under the proper transformations, and hence isn't really a metric at all. Apply the lorentz transformations to the dual forms and the metric and see for yourself. You did not discuss this in anyway in this post.

 

I also ask where you find my knowledge of the foundations of physics meager, a claim that you fail to support. I further ask why you think your perspective allows for quantification of gravity any better then Einstein's. All the things that make the problem difficult still exist in your model. Furthermore, I ask when I appealed to authority in my arguements. Lastly, you didn't comment at all on the energy/time symmetry and why it is acceptable to reduce this down simply to rest mass/proper time. It seems that most of your post sidestepped the issues I had raised.

 

It can be demonstrated that my approach yields exactly the same results as Einstein's approach except for a few small details. First, it is not at all in conflict with quantum mechanics,[..] and finally, gravity can be cast as a geometric effect without violating quantum mechanics in any way.

 

Now, I point out that special relativity is in complete agreement with quantum mechanics.

 

Also, even given the validity of your model, nothing you have presented here in anyway demonstrates your system is any better then Einstein's when it comes to gravity. Your model has all the features that make Einstein's difficult to quantize.

 

I hope you can comprehend why your complaints against my presentation carry no weight. Everything you say needs to be reevaluated in terms of my picture.

 

Your new picture shouldn't change basic facts about quantum mechanics, which were the basis for the first part of my criticism. It also hasn't redefined the mathematics of manifolds, so your metric still has to be invariant under certain transformations. These are my main criticisms, and do not depend on Einstein.

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Folks. Let's take a calm step back. I think you two are both incredibly smart, and possibly so smart that you are missing the fine points of your own arguments, or possibly one of you is wrong and the other right. Regardless, neither one of you will get anywhere if you keep taking perceived hits to your egos and dishing them back out.

 

Might I suggest never saying that the other isn't intelligent enough to understand something you perceive to be simple. The flaw is that your perception of how simple something is, is always biased. You need to check your perceptions and believe that you are fallible.

 

DD I particularly place this burden upon you, because you are the presenter of a new idea here. As such if people don't understand that presentation, then perhaps it is because you have failed to present it well. So no comments such as

I am sorry Will, but you are entirely too trusting of authority. And I am also afraid that your knowledge of the foundations of physics is a little on the meager side. Everything you are doing is based upon the presumption that Einstein's perspective is the correct point of view. I am trying to show you an alternate perspective which solves all of the current problems in modern physics.

 

I suggest starting over from a much earlier beginning. If it would take hundreds of pages as you say to explain it, then best you use your time more wisely and not waste the first 6 pages arguing about the deepest points that no one understands. It is a simple rule of presentation that you first must determine the level of understanding of your audience (again no assumptions or pomposity or else you'll fail).

Might I also make a suggestion I've made to others who had trouble being understood. PROOFREAD your work. I myself could and should take my own advice on this, as I have caught myself rambling into major run on sentences. However, no one has complained to me about being unable to understand my points.

 

Will, if you think that you are finding flaws in his statements, don't jump on it and say that his presentation is flawed, instead ask questions to gain deeper understanding of his way of thinking. Perhaps you are the one missing a step that he thought you and anyone else would make. Draw him out into make a more robust statement, that will prove itself to be flawed or beautifully orchestrated.

I'm finding way too many arguments on this entire forum for failure to do these two things. I myself have been a participant for failure to heed this advice and hope to help others now that I have realized it.

[cwes99_03]

DD if mass does not exist in your picture, then wouldn't you have problems with Newton's own explanation of the way things work? Or did I miss something in your explanation that explains this?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I asked my son to help me go through DoctorDick's paper on Explanation and we went as far as we could go and were limited by my facility with that level of mathematics. I was more interested in his reaction to it than I was in understanding what DD was trying to show.

Now the reason why is kind of complicated. I've assumed that something of importance is contained in DD's work. Just a gut feeling based upon the things I've seen DD say on this thread and on others. He has insights, non-standard insights and to me, that is good. Even if he's wrong, it's good. He's coming at stuff from a different direction and were I to struggle through and see his point of view, my knowledge, rather, the strength of my understanding of the subject would be increased. It would be more three dimensional, if you will grant me that way of describing it.

It seemed clear, when we started going through DD's paper, that we were dealing with a person who understands mathematics and knows how to make it a tool for seeing things in a different light.

That alone, as opposed to those who stand on the way things are looked at today, makes it valuable in my mind.

I was disappointed with my son's reaction to the paper, however. He looked upon it as work. I looked upon it as hard. Well, perhaps his response was the result of having to sit through classes on mathematics (he seemed to understand what DD was doing) where perhaps the emphasis is not on discovery but on passing the tests. Maybe in time he'll recover.

From a father's point of view I would have been delighted if I saw eagerness in his eyes instead of pain. And the pain makes me sad.

Just thought I'd pass that along to anyone who might care.

DoctorDick, is there any way you could preface your paper with a more in-depth description of the implications and significance of your work assuming it is valid?

[infamous]

I am sorry Will, but you are entirely too trusting of authority. And I am also afraid that your knowledge of the foundations of physics is a little on the meager side.

That remark directed at Erasmus00 borders on an insult Docdick, please confine your replies to the arguments being discussed and not to the aptitude of the participants.....Infy

[Qfwfq]

I was disappointed with my son's reaction to the paper, however. He looked upon it as work. I looked upon it as hard. Well, perhaps his response was the result of having to sit through classes on mathematics (he seemed to understand what DD was doing) where perhaps the emphasis is not on discovery but on passing the tests. Maybe in time he'll recover.

From a father's point of view I would have been delighted if I saw eagerness in his eyes instead of pain. And the pain makes me sad.

I can understand your son's pain as being due to how DD presents the whole thing.

 

I got myself through courses on the most fundamental topics of 20th century physics. I didn't get through them by placing the emphasis on passing the tests. To the contrary, when just starting to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, I wasted far too much time thinking of alternaties to the Copenhagen interpretation and got totally out of pace with the courses, I had to struggle plenty to recover later. Very silly. After I had spent ages, pondering about an idea that had struck me, wondering if I could ever test it and show the lads it was good, I eventually came to know that a few physicists including Schrödinger had thought along the same lines but nothing came of it. I had indeed begun to realize some of the difficulties with it.

 

I would not describe myself as "entirely too trusting of authority" or other things of which DD accuses his critics. I have tried to glean more understanding from him, of his framework, in order to make out how QM could be inferred from it but I more and more see where his criticism of the mainstrem is misplaced.

[cwes99_03]

OK OK, thanks guys for the well placed and touching remarks. I too can see that DD and a few others on this site are great thinkers. Now can we get back to the point of this thread, that is whether time is measureable, or maybe that part of the thread is dead.

[Doctordick]

That remark directed at Erasmus00 borders on an insult Docdick, please confine your replies to the arguments being discussed and not to the aptitude of the participants.....Infy

I did not intend to insult Will at all and I sincerely hope he did not take it as an insult. I sincerely believe one has to discount entirely the authoritarian position or they will have great trouble following my presentation. My perspective is so alien from the accepted standard that it really must stand on it's own; at least until my perspective is understood. And, when I spoke of the foundations, I was speaking of the underlying assumptions inherent in their starting point. The existence of assumptions is an issue seldom considered by hard scientists but quite often brought up by philosophers most of whom don't know much physics (at least not the kind of things we find on the cutting edge of physics).

... whether time is measureable, or maybe that part of the thread is dead.

I started the thread and it was my position that it is the difference between my view of time and the academy's view which is preventing them from seeing a very simple mechanism for removing the problems between GR and QM. And everyone here is right; I have great difficulty making myself clear.

Only one calculation above assumed anything about the truth of Einstein's perspective, which is when I discussed your metric. Furthermore, the only thing I needed was the validity of the Lorentz transformations. You yourself suggested the validity of the lorentz transformations in your new system.

That would be the specific transformations, not the representation based on Einstein's geometry.

I still hold that your metric is NOT invariant under the proper transformations ... You did not discuss this in anyway in this post.

You cannot talk about transformations until you understand the structures of the entities being transformed. Physics is not a trivial subject and, if a new perspective is introduced, the entities allowed in that structure have to be re-established before one can even begin to talk about appearances and the required transformations are a direct statement about appearances.

I also ask where you find my knowledge of the foundations of physics meager, a claim that you fail to support.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to upset you; I was actually just referring to where you are coming from as compared to where I am. Very few people capable of understanding the mathematical representation of physics have also made a serious examination of the foundations. It is an issue physicist prefer to ignore. What I am talking about are the assumptions embedded in their starting point. Most of the assumptions I have in mind are only addressed by philosophers but even philosophers miss a lot because they are not aware of some of the subtleties due to their ignorance of physics. It's a big complex field with many complex deductions.

I further ask why you think your perspective allows for quantification of gravity any better then Einstein's.

Because it's true; however, it is only seen after one begins to follow those complex deductions from the new perspective I am trying to explain.

Lastly, you didn't comment at all on the energy/time symmetry and why it is acceptable to reduce this down simply to rest mass/proper time.

It is acceptable because, if you do so, the consequences turn out to be exactly what we see. The problem is that the deductions are not a trivial issue. Likewise with the issue of gravity.

Your model has all the features that make Einstein's difficult to quantize.

No, it has one feature which Einstein's lacks: in mine, time is an interaction evolution parameter totally outside the geometry used to represent the state of the universe. Quantum mechanics and the phenomena of quantization only arise out of examination of interaction evolution.

Regardless, neither one of you will get anywhere if you keep taking perceived hits to your egos and dishing them back out.

I don't take anything here as a hit on my ego. I am pretty sure I am right and just want to communicate it to someone before I die, that's all.

The flaw is that your perception of how simple something is, is always biased. You need to check your perceptions and believe that you are fallible.

Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. The only problem is that the entire world is just looking for an excuse to ignore what I say: i.e., taken seriously, to follow your advice is simple, "I should just shut up and go away." Perhaps I will one of these days. As I have tried to explain, I didn't intend to be insulting to Will; I was trying to explain why he was missing the point.

I suggest starting over from a much earlier beginning.

Ah, but the beginning is right there for everyone to look at and their reaction is quite simple: "what is this crap?" Particularly the reaction of professional physicists as they think they already know what physics is all about.

Doctordick, is there any way you could preface your paper with a more in-depth description of the implications and significance of your work assuming it is valid?

Yeah, but I hate to put it in print. You asked for it so I'll go ahead and lay it out. What the hell, the worst case scenario is I get labeled as a crackpot and I seem to have already accomplished that. An "in-depth description" would be that it is a complete and total rewrite of the field of physics. The "implications and significance" are quite simple. If what I say is true, then the field of physics is a tautology and the implications are quite profound. Actually, I find it quite funny that the professionals immediately discount my work under the "fact" that physics could not possibly be a tautology and then turn around and start talking about being close to a TOE which, to be valid, would have to be a tautology (i.e., if it's a TOE, everything can be deduced from it). And finally, if everything can be deduced from it, then how can it be a called a "theory"? I generally try to avoid saying any such things because the universal reaction is totally negative: the professional opinion seems to be that the very fact that I might suggest such a possibility is absolutely incontrovertible evidence that I'm a total crackpot! At least that is the reaction I have always met.

 

At any rate, a clear understanding of my derivation of that equation at the end of A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself is the very first step. The problem from my perspective is that I have no idea what step of that deduction is causing all the difficulty. I would certainly clear it up if I knew.

It is a simple rule of presentation that you first must determine the level of understanding of your audience (again no assumptions or pomposity or else you'll fail).

I was hoping that I could depend on the reverse; that by posting here, I might just happen to run across someone interested in thinking about the same things I think about. Actually, I don't think anything I am saying is really beyond anyone here, it's just incredibly alien from their perspective. Notice that the term "incredible" technically comes from "not to be credited" and that certainly seems to be a good term for the official status of my work.

DD if mass does not exist in your picture, then wouldn't you have problems with Newton's own explanation of the way things work? Or did I miss something in your explanation that explains this?

I never got so deep as to show that result and showing it rigorously (which I can do) is a little more complex than I think we should be trying to do here. However, perhaps a little hand waving arguments would carry a little weight.

 

Note that Newton's fundamental equation is F=ma. But when you notice that, you should also keep in mind the fact that F (i.e., the concept of "force") is an advanced concept and not really a basic notion of fundamental physics. Force is used as a conceptual summary of momentum conservation: i.e., conservation of momentum requires that, if the momentum of one entity changes, an equal and opposite change of momentum must exist in another entity or collection of entities (i.e., force is a name given to a hypothetical commodity being exchanged in order to maintain conservation of momentum). The "fact" that one object exerts a force is merely a conceptual way of characterizing the existence of a change in momentum of that object. Force is actually a meaningless concept when standing alone with only one object by itself in the universe.

 

So think about a four dimensional Euclidean universe containing nothing but massless particles. Conservation of momentum (momentum being, in this case, defined as the space differential of the wave function of those particles) is a direct consequence of shift symmetry. (By the way, symmetry is another issue I believe needs some clarification beyond what is ordinarily presented.) Once conservation of momentum is deduced as a law of the universe just defined, the fact that I suggest only those entities in a momentum quantized state in the tau direction are of interest to us yields some very profound results.

 

First, if momentum is conserved in all four directions, the magnitude of the momentum vector is also conserved. That would be

[math]|P| = \sqrt{{P_x}^2+ {P_y}^2+ {P_z}^2+ {P_\tau}^2 }.[/math]

 

Now if momentum in the tau direction is always quantized (as far as our experiments are concerned) and referred to as rest mass, then the magnitude of that four dimensional momentum becomes what is ordinarily called energy. The equation above then becomes:

[math]|P|c = E = \sqrt{({{P_x}c})^2+ ({{P_y}c})^2+ ({{P_z}c})^2+ {({m_0}c^2})^2 }.[/math]

 

The c's being nothing more than a conversion constant embedded in the definition of Energy and mass due to the fact that these elements were arrived at separately in standard physics. Thus, these quantized elements in my picture must obey both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum in the standard picture. Given conservation of energy and momentum plus a definition that force is the time rate of change of momentum, Newtonian mechanics pretty well come down the tube with little overt pressure.

 

For the pure fun of it, let us construct a primitive clock in this picture. My clock is going to be two connected massive mirrors with a pulse of massless entities bouncing back and forth between them (photons???). The first point is that the wave functions of all elements of the clock will be sufficiently localized in the x, y and z directions that I can refer to the "positions" of the significant entities. For all non-virtual entities going to make up the "mirror assembly", their momentum in the tau direction will be quantized at some value not equal to zero (i.e., the mirror is made up of massive entities). For all entities going to make up the "pulse assembly", their momentum in the tau direction will be quantized at the value zero. (i.e., the pulse is made up of massless entities).

 

The momentum of the entities making up the "mirror assembly" in the x, y, and z directions are negligible compared to their momentum in the tau direction. The net consequence is that the "mirror assembly is moving in the tau direction at a velocity fixed by it's macroscopic momentum in that direction (defined by the macroscopic resolution of its equation of motion). We are presuming here that microscopic interactions exist which will maintain the structure being described (that fact can be defended with deeper analysis). As a result of the wave function described, the macroscopic cross section of the "mirror assembly" perpendicular to tau is absolutely and totally uniform throughout all values of tau. And that it is not moving macroscopically in the x, y or z direction.

 

The momentum of the entities making up the "pulse assembly" in the x and z directions are negligible compared to their momentum in the y direction. And, finally, the total momentum of the entire collection of entities making up the "pulse assembly" in the y direction are negligible with respect to the total momentum of the "mirror assembly" in the y direction. Note that the result of the wave function described, the macroscopic cross section of the "pulse assembly" perpendicular to tau is also absolutely and totally uniform throughout all values of tau. And, macroscopically, the pulse is moving in the y direction at a velocity fixed by it's macroscopic momentum in that direction. Since both the "mirror assembly" and the "pulse assembly" are totally uniform for all values of tau, the three dimensional profile of them define their macroscopic structure exactly.

 

Finally, if contact between the "mirror assembly" and the "pulse assembly" yield exchange of momentum between the constitute entities, reflection will occur and the y momentum of the "pulse assembly" will be reversed. Since the free macroscopic equation of motion of the entities is the wave velocity of these "massless" entities, the "location" of the "pulse assembly" will move at a constant velocity in the y direction. Thus it will oscillate between the branches of the mirror at a fixed frequency depending on that velocity (and it thus it fulfills the classic definition of a clock).

 

But the real interesting factor here is that, although the position of the mirror assembly in the tau direction can not be known, since all entities in the discussion propagate at exactly the same velocity, during the time of one complete oscillation, the clock assembly moves exactly twice L in the tau direction. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with the referenced velocity with which the calculation was performed. Instead, it is actually a comparison of units of measure in the tau direction as opposed to units of measure in the y direction. It follows that the value of c in the equation T = 2L/c for the period of the clock is no more than the ratio of the units of measure in the tau direction as opposed to the units of measure in the y direction.

 

Now, the problem of analyzing a moving clock is a bit more involved as it is necessary to deduce the consequences of that motion on those microscopic interactions which maintain the structure of our clock. Again, a rigorous deduction is far from simple; however, if it is to be produced by exchange phenomena mediated by entities of this massless universe, it should be clear to anyone familiar with massless exchange phenomena that the apparent lengths in the direction of travel will be changed by exactly the amount seen in special relativity (it is a purely kinematic consequence). What is really surprising about the result is that the moving clock also moves exactly 2L in the tau direction though it's period is quite different (it's period compared to the rest clock turns out to be exactly what is predicted by special relativity). Once again, the period of the clock has nothing to do with the wave function velocity.

 

In fact, the wave function velocity comes out to be a somewhat meaningless factor having to do with the mathematical expression used in our calculation and little more. It turns out that the resultant physics becomes rather independent of what velocity is chosen. This is the crux of my comment, "Is 'time' a measurable variable?" Another crucial consequence of this analysis is that relativity, seen as the requirement that the laws of physics be independent of the frame of reference, is inherently satisfied by this frame of reference. That is to say, so long as one uses the same physical length to define distance as one uses to define time, everything works out fine.

 

That is entirely consistent with standard physics. What it says is that the physical results one obtains are identical in both frames: your calculations may be done in your apparent rest frame (using a clock and ruler at rest in that frame) or you may presume you are moving with respect to the correct rest frame (using a clock and ruler moving in your frame) and the end results will be identical. That is exactly the requirement on which relativity is based. The only real difference between the standard approach and my approach is that, in the standard case, you must assume that your frame of reference is important: i.e., you can define the state of being at rest. In my case it simply makes no difference as it is no more than a mathematical convenience.

 

If anyone actually wants to see the analysis of the moving clock, I will lay it out; but it is not trivial.

I asked my son to help me go through DoctorDick's paper on Explanation and we went as far as we could go and were limited by my facility with that level of mathematics.

My real problem with that is that I have no idea where you were stopped. If I did have an idea, I might be able to help you across the difficulty. For everyone who reads this, I need your help to communicate what I have to say. Please give me a hand as I clearly can't do it on my own as I don't know where people are losing the thread.

 

I am sincere -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

And, when I spoke of the foundations, I was speaking of the underlying assumptions inherent in their starting point. The existence of assumptions is an issue seldom considered by hard scientists but quite often brought up by philosophers most of whom don't know much physics (at least not the kind of things we find on the cutting edge of physics).

 

I beg to differ. Working theorists are always concerned with the assumptions and foundations of physics. Good textbooks usually take the time to point what considerations are experimental, and lay out the logic following these.

 

I started the thread and it was my position that it is the difference between my view of time and the academy's view which is preventing them from seeing a very simple mechanism for removing the problems between GR and QM.

 

Your 'interpretation' is one of special relativity, which is already completely compatible with quantum mechancis. You haven't in any way shown that you have removed the hurdles that make quantizing GR difficult. If you want people to believe, you have to show what difficulties you have removed. Quantizing fields in your scheme seems to lead to the same problems with GR that quantizing fields assuming 'normal' special relativity does.

 

[with regards to Lorentz transformations]That would be the specific transformations, not the representation based on Einstein's geometry.

 

Then please show me the Lorentz transformations in your new representation, and demonstrate that your metric transforms properly. You keep saying that I have a misunderstanding, but you haven't in any way shown that your metric is invariant under lorentz transformations, which has been one of my key complaints.

 

Very few people capable of understanding the mathematical representation of physics have also made a serious examination of the foundations. It is an issue physicist prefer to ignore. What I am talking about are the assumptions embedded in their starting point. Most of the assumptions I have in mind are only addressed by philosophers but even philosophers miss a lot because they are not aware of some of the subtleties due to their ignorance of physics. It's a big complex field with many complex deductions.

 

Then what are these assumptions you have a problem with. I hold that anyone studying mathematical physics comes into contact with the assumptions made, and any good theorist spends a great deal of time thinking about foundations.

 

I don't take anything here as a hit on my ego. I am pretty sure I am right and just want to communicate it to someone before I die, that's all.

 

As a word of advice, direct responses to questions is more helpful then sidestepping the question and launching a restatement. A demonstration that your metric transforms properly under the Lorentz group is worth a thousand lectures about my ignorance.

 

A discussion of where your picture wuold produce different results then quantum field theory would be nice, so that I have some hope of understanding why you feel this provides for a way of reconciling GR and quantum.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

Yeah, but I hate to put it in print. You asked for it so I'll go ahead and lay it out. What the hell, the worst case scenario is I get labeled as a crackpot and I seem to have already accomplished that.

Well, not in my mind, if that means anything. I don't understand your math Dick, but what I find amusing is that since math is one of the icons of science and is used against non standard theories, when a theory comes along that is based completely on math (yours), it is ignored.

It would seem to me that you are either right or you aren't. You've either used mathematical principles correctly or you haven't. I mean, it's either black or it's white or have I missed the point about the purity of mathematics? Or is mathematics only pure when we want it to be? :confused:

[ughaibu]

Something I read recently on a different forum:

make sure you have a good grasp of logic and how it relates to proofs, but realize that its ideas that drive proofs, not the logical chain of reasoning. I say this because I struggled early on as a mathematician in certain ways because I put too strong an emphasis on understanding proofs in a strictly logical sense, without really having a grasp of what is going on structurally

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Something I read recently on a different forum:

make sure you have a good grasp of logic and how it relates to proofs, but realize that its ideas that drive proofs, not the logical chain of reasoning. I say this because I struggled early on as a mathematician in certain ways because I put too strong an emphasis on understanding proofs in a strictly logical sense, without really having a grasp of what is going on structurally

Hmmm. If DoctorDick's mathematics make some areas of existence visible...and is consistent with others but show them in a different light, wouldn't it be fairly safe to accept his premises as being possibly true? Or, at the very least, as true as the premises underlying accepted theory?

Everything we think we know is an interpretation of sensory input. We sense time and assume it exists as a detectable entity but in fact our sense of it is just a response to our ability to remember (to replay an event with our mind's eye). I don't argue the sequential nature of events but I do doubt the understanding and usage of the term 'time'. Because we detect it internally, we assume it exists externally in a similar fashion. I feel there is a strong possibility that much of our 'knowledge' is based upon an optical illusion.

[Doctordick]

I beg to differ. Working theorists are always concerned with the assumptions and foundations of physics.

Ok, what did these "working theorists" tell you to defend their assumption that distances are concrete aspects of reality and not a creation of their minds? Or, even better than that, what aspects of their theories are creations of their minds and what parts are known to be absolutely valid representations of reality? I have a large quantity of physics textbooks in my library and not a one of them discusses this issue. "Working theorists" are seldom concerned with examination of the assumptions of authorities.

Quantizing fields in your scheme seems to lead to the same problems with GR that quantizing fields assuming 'normal' special relativity does.

It may seem that way to you; but that does not make it true.

Then please show me the Lorentz transformations in your new representation, and demonstrate that your metric transforms properly.

As I said, "so long as one uses the same physical length to define distance as one uses to define time, everything works out fine". There is no conceptual need of the "Lorentz transformations". The existence of the Lorentz transformation comes directly from the assumption that a unique coordinate system can be set up; an assumption not supportable once one realizes that two different clocks cannot possibly both be standards of time. The assumption that both can be standards of time assumes the clocks do not accelerate with regard to one another (i.e., space is absolutely flat) which is violated by the very existence of the clocks.

Then what are these assumptions you have a problem with.

Reality is a space-time continuum, distances in one direction in the universe can be compared to distances in an orthogonal direction, the scale of the universe is a measurable quantity, ... ; I could go on and on but I don't think the result would be worth the effort as I suspect you cannot conceive of these assumptions being false.

A discussion of where your picture would produce different results then quantum field theory would be nice, so that I have some hope of understanding why you feel this provides for a way of reconciling GR and quantum.

That is not a trivial issue and you would first have to understand A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself and you don't seem to have any interest in that issue at all.

DoctorDick:Well, not in my mind, if that means anything.

It does, but I really can't communicate with you without knowing exactly where you fail to understand my math. I don't think there is any real difficulty there as none of the mathematics I use is really very far beyond what is taught in ordinary calculus and algebra. I just need to know where the problems are coming in. Mathematics is nothing more than logic.

Something I read recently on a different forum:

make sure you have a good grasp of logic and how it relates to proofs, but realize that it's ideas that drive proofs, not the logical chain of reasoning.

But, if the ideas driving the proof are deeper and more all encompassing than the proof, one must fall back to the only thing which can be consciously followed: the logical chain of reasoning. Think about it, we are trying to describe the universe under the constraint that, "the only thing we know for sure, is that we know nothing for sure". Can you give me a starting point consistent with that perspective? Please note, as an aside, that I take mathematics (and logic) as a unique mode of communication and not as a self evident truth. Mathematics (and logic) are unique because statements in mathematics (and logic) enjoy an almost perfect definition of terms and misinterpretation is next to impossible; a quality not shared by any other human language.

I struggled early on as a mathematician in certain ways because I put too strong an emphasis on understanding proofs in a strictly logical sense, without really having a grasp of what is going on structurally

You can't understand my work from the perspective of understanding where I am trying to go. Instead, you need to understand that the equation I develop,

needs to apply directly to the fundamental elements of any explanation of anything and from that fact, define the fundamental elements of that explanation in terms of solutions of that equation. This is a complete and total reverse of the ordinary approach.

Hmmm. If DoctorDick's mathematics make some areas of existence visible...and is consistent with others but show them in a different light, wouldn't it be fairly safe to accept his premises as being possibly true?

Just out of curiosity, exactly what do you think my "premises" are (that is, beyond the premise that mathematics is a trustworthy mechanism of communication and that "an explanation" is the single most fundamental concept behind understanding anything)?

Everything we think we know is an interpretation of sensory input.

Wait! Isn't "sensory input" already an explanation of something? How do you know for sure there is anything such as "sensory input"? In my interpretation, we have information, C, to work with. How we get that information is an issue to be explained later; after we have at least defined some concepts beyond "an explanation".

I feel there is a strong possibility that much of our 'knowledge' is based upon an optical illusion.

Well, I think the operative word there is "illusion"; "optical" already has a great many assumptions built in. When I first arrived on this forum, I tried to explain my perspective on how we come to know things. In my head, my conscious mind rides on the information provided to it by my subconscious mind. Formal logic is an ability available only to my conscious mind and must work on that information provided by my subconscious mind. The detailed functioning of my subconscious mind is not available for examination and thus can not be checked for accuracy; however, it's ability to deal with massive amounts of information far exceeds my conscious mind. My first thread on this forum was an attempt to explain the necessity for recognizing that dichotomy and I feel I failed utterly.

 

The existence of these two fundamental aspects of experience is talked about in an interesting publication by Metzinger. It is not easy reading but points out some important aspects of such a division. If you want to look at it, check out his post. What he refers to as "transparency" is a particularly significant issue. In lay terms, he is expressing the kind of transparency seen in common communication systems: i.e., the information obtained can not be used to discover the actual function of the communication system. One can say the communication system is a transparent window into the actual information being presented.

 

It is an excellent presentation; however, he misses a very important issue (I admit it is an issue of little concern to him). That would be another idea fundamentally embedded in the word "transparency". The word "transparency" implies what is seen is what is out there; however, with human communication devices (TV signals, radio, the internet, hearing aids, audio systems, etc.) there exists other ways of obtaining the same information whereas, when it comes to the conscious mind, the only source of any information arises from the subconscious and the word "transparency" sort of includes an assumption that what you see is correct. That Metzinger himself has made that assumption is evident in his clear presumption that the scientific conclusions concerning reality are correct. Again, I will excuse him because that issue is really not a concern of his; however, it is a very strong concern of mine.

 

I appreciated your note and it moved me to post again. I had pretty well decided that posting here was a waste of time and, unless some serious interest in what I have discovered arises, I may just forget about it. I was hoping to run into some people educated enough to follow me who were still open minded enough to think about what I said and there seems to be little of that on this forum.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

Ok, what did these "working theorists" tell you to defend their assumption that distances are concrete aspects of reality and not a creation of their minds? Or, even better than that, what aspects of their theories are creations of their minds and what parts are known to be absolutely valid representations of reality? I have a large quantity of physics textbooks in my library and not a one of them discusses this issue.

 

Thats because it isn't the field of science, but maybe more correctly the philosophy of science. Science isn't about wether reality is "real" per se, but instead the creation of models. You make a model and do experiemnts to see if your model conforms to your experiment.

 

There is no way to prove wether or not reality is "real." (Consider Des Cartes idea that a vengeful demon could be messing with all our senses, or the more modern idea of a brain in a jar being manipulated).

 

(in regards to wether or not DoctorDick's theory resolves the difficulty between GR and quantum) It may seem that way to you; but that does not make it true.

 

Which is why I asked for clarification. The above is not clarification.

 

As I said, "so long as one uses the same physical length to define distance as one uses to define time, everything works out fine". There is no conceptual need of the "Lorentz transformations". The existence of the Lorentz transformation comes directly from the assumption that a unique coordinate system can be set up; an assumption not supportable once one realizes that two different clocks cannot possibly both be standards of time. The assumption that both can be standards of time assumes the clocks do not accelerate with regard to one another (i.e., space is absolutely flat) which is violated by the very existence of the clocks.

 

The Lorentz transformations do not stem from the assumption that a unique coordinate sysetm can be set up! Rather, it allows us to take into account the same situation from several different observers. Mathematically you have set up a metric that seems invalid, and you keep sidestepping the issue. If space is curved, which you imply with your statemtn that it isn't absolutely flat, then you need SEVERAL sets of coordinates to cover space, and therefore it is essential to have some idea of a coordinate transformation.

 

(with regards to unjustified assumptions DoctorDick claims are made) Reality is a space-time continuum, distances in one direction in the universe can be compared to distances in an orthogonal direction, the scale of the universe is a measurable quantity, ...

 

The space-time continuum is a hypothesis and model, not an assumption. Thus far experiment has born it out but it is by no means assumed. Similarly, that the scale of the universe is measurable is a prediction of GR. So far, all experiments have verified GR which supports but doesn't prove the universe is of finite extent. Thus far, (and probably forever) experiments are limited to the so called visible universe.

 

(when I asked for quantitative differences between his theory and 'normal' QFT) That is not a trivial issue and you would first have to understand A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself and you don't seem to have any interest in that issue at all.

 

I feel as if this is another dodge. Here is a specific question: what does your theory predict for the energy density of the vacuum? How do you avoid the divergences that come about in QFT?

 

I appreciated your note and it moved me to post again. I had pretty well decided that posting here was a waste of time and, unless some serious interest in what I have discovered arises, I may just forget about it. I was hoping to run into some people educated enough to follow me who were still open minded enough to think about what I said and there seems to be little of that on this forum.

 

I've put in a fair amount of time to try and understand your relativity model and your universal explanation model. When I ran into problems I asked questions as clearly as I could for which I seldom recieved direct answers, and often recieved comments that could easily be percieved as insults.

 

If you truly care about spreading the word, you must be willing to answer skeptical queries without insinuating that the fault lies with the asker of the question.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

There is no conceptual need of the "Lorentz transformations". The existence of the Lorentz transformation comes directly from the assumption that a unique coordinate system can be set up; an assumption not supportable once one realizes that two different clocks cannot possibly both be standards of time. The assumption that both can be standards of time assumes the clocks do not accelerate with regard to one another (i.e., space is absolutely flat) which is violated by the very existence of the clocks.

Gosh Doc, where do you get things like that? Are you able to support such claims?