The most inconstant of constants

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:46 pm

But how can anybody conclude that anything exists without an observer?
A conclusion is something that only an observer has.
A piece of knowledge has as an a priori truth: A knower of the knowledge! (Kant)

The fourth dimension of space is just about the only explanation for how it is
that the universe can expand away from the observer at the fastest rate,
the further that the observed object is from the observer.

The only other logical explanation is that the Earth is at the center of the Universe.
Seeing as though the Earth is just another planet around just an ordinary star;
(I really hope we are not going down this path?)
then if at all potential observer points the universe is expanding fastest at the furthest
distance, then then the universe is expanding in 4-d space.

Briefly:
If a 2-d surface is observed to expand
such that the furthest objects recede fastest from the observer
and this is true for any observer on any point of the surface
then the 2-d surface is actually a hollow 3-d sphere,
expanding in 3-d space.

Imagine yourself sitting on an expanding balloon.
Picture how the objects furthest away recede fastest.

Thus:
If 3-d space is observed to expand
such that the furthest objects recede fastest from the observer
and this is true for any observer on any point in the space
then the 3-d space is actually a hollow 4-d sphere,
expanding in 4-d space.

As for the properties of space, you ask the perfect question.

Note that in the model outlined briefly above, the 2-d sphere is actually
a substance, quite distinct from the 3-d space.

So 3-d space is a substance distinct from 4-d space.

The  most obvious property of OUR space is
that most of the objects confined to it, are confined to 3 dimensions.

It is only subtle effects like it expanding evenly in all directions,
with the furthest objects expanding away at the fastest rate
that FORCE us to conclude that it is 4-dimensional,
(or that the Earth is the center of the universe.)

Another property of space is that it is completely connected to gravity and light
confined to that 3-d space.



This image shows, not only WHY gravity is expressed as g=m/r2
but also why light decreases in intensity ALSO in the exact same proportion:
to the inverse of the square with distance.

:Because both gravity and light are strictly connected to 3-d space.

The gravity of a 2-d universe would be g=m/r



... as the above diagram demonstrates.

At double the distance, both gravity and light spread out into 2 times the area in 2-d space.
At double the distance, both gravity and light spread out into 4 times the area in 3-d space.
at three times the distance in 3-d space, gravity and light spread to 9 times the area.




QUESTION:
In a 4-d universe with 4-d gravity, how many times weaker is 4-d gravity at 4 times the distance?

If you do not answer this question, then you are not reading this post.

...

As for the 'collapsing of the wave function', well this is certainly
a phrase that I have encountered many times - but I have to ask:
'What is a wave?'

A wave is a mathematical form,
the shape of which is that of a particle in proportion to other particles
(like the shape of a wave in the ocean)
or,
it is a mathematical construct that a particle can have with itself over time.
(this is how we use the sin curve to construct a circle using angles in trigonometry)

The wave has no substance of its own, any more than any other math sign
like a + or - or square root, or a perfect circle does.

Thus such notions exist, only in what Plato called the 'realm of forms'.

The concept of a 'wavicle' or the notion that light sometimes is a wave,
and sometimes a particle, is a terrible fallacy, that misses this point entirely.

The 'collapsing of the wave function' is a phrase often used to describe how potential
futures are actualized as one event and not another. The 'wave' in this phrase has no
more real existence than any other math construct. It is an expression of probability.

...

Yes
I have seamlessly unified QM with a few pieces of the shambles of relativity.

The details of which are summarized in
this article:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

and the full 35 page chapter in this pdf document:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20-%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf

(Print it out and read it away from the distraction of the computer)

The first logical conclusion of which is that quantum time and relative time
are mutually exclusive concepts.

If time can 'dilate' then it is quite simply NOT logically consistent with quantum time.
A quantum cannot get bigger and smaller: for otherwise it is not a quantum!

Quantum time is necessary or we end up in Zeno's paradox.
How Planck time solves Zeno's paradox
here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm

I agree that we must always reduce any philosophy to its simplest form.
But more important than this, is that the philosophy in question cannot disobey
the laws of logic and mathematics.


In the early 19th century some may have argued that other planets like Neptune and Uranus
do not exist any more than constructs of the theorist. But their existence was predicted
because the mathematical model of g=m/r^2 was perfectly distributed in 3-d space.

It is impossible to accept gravity without 3-d space.
It is impossible that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
It is impossible for the expanding universe to be anything else other
than proof that there MUST BE 4 dimensions of space.

But yes,
there are at least two types of space,
for our 3-d universe is expanding in proportion to 4-d space.
So our 3-d space has SUBSTANCE to it, in order to be doing this.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Obvious Leo on Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:13 pm

What physical properties does your space have, Jon?  If it has no physical properties it cannot be physically real, a simple truth of mathematical philosophy which dates back to the Persians and was accepted as an a priori truth by Leibniz. That space is not physical was finally proven beyond all doubt by Michelson and Morley so to invent a fourth spatial dimension strikes me as a gratuitous extravagance when we already have three surplus to requirements. Occam economy is the central pillar of all of science and Occam economy demands that that which is unnecessary cannot be. In the absence of an observer no spatial dimensions of any sort are necessary to explain any aspect of physical reality, a claim which is very easily proven, therefore the spaces you refer to are the property of the observer and not the property of his observation.

Your work on real-time gravitational motion is fascinating, Jon, because it will lead you seamlessly to the unification needed between GR and QM. Consider this statement as a provocative thought bubble.

"Collapsing a wave function" is a conscious act performed by an observer when he interrogates a sub-atomic real-time process. Specifically when the observer collapses a wave function he codifies events occurring in time and represents these events as objects moving in space. In other words the observer spatialises time, just as he does on the macro scale. However on the sub-atomic scale this spatial extension of a purely temporal process leads to some rather bizarre and paradoxical conclusions, not the least of which is that sub-atomic particles can appear to behave non-causally, can appear to occupy two different spatial locations at the same time, can appear as either a particle or a wave, etc. In fact every single bullshit notion in quantum mechanics is a consequence of this self-delusional observer effect.

Einstein said "Bollocks, the moon is still there whether somebody is watching it or not" and this led to one of the greatest arguments in 20th century physics because QM emphatically says otherwise.  Einstein was right and QM is "sort of" right as well. The moon is still there whether somebody is watching it or not but the space between the observer and the moon is only there when somebody is watching it because the space between the observer and the moon is an observer construct. In an ontological and thus physical sense the moon only has extension in time.

This simplest of all possible explanations solves every single counter-intuitive absurdity in all of physics.  It contradicts no physical law and is in complete accordance with every scrap of evidence and thus cannot possibly be wrong.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:19 pm

Well, the debate between gravitational waves and instant gravity, is one that
I can only consider unanswered for now. (But I am working on it).
But I am firmly Newtonian in a distinct separation between space and time.

There is much ambiguity in the concept of curved space,
and it seems that Albert's view is far to pervasive.

You are probably familiar with the observation that the most
distant galaxies are red-shifted and thus moving away from us
at the fastest rates?

To explain this we envision a model of a 2-d universe.
A flat surface on which all observers reside.
The only way that all points in that 2-d universe can be moving away
from each other simultaneously is if that 2-d universe has a 3rd dimension.

IE, it is actually a sphere, even though all observers are fixed to the surface of
the sphere and have no direct perception of the 3rd dimension.

And the sphere is expanding in 3-d space.

It seems the only way we can explain how the most distant objects
are moving away from us is if the universe is actually a 4-d expanding sphere.

NOW!

The problem with most other descriptions of this model is that they conflate
this extra 4-d space with time.

Don't listen to them!
4-d space is just another dimension of space.
But this 4-d universe must be curved because spheres are curved.

But all effects confined to the surface of the sphere are curved with the sphere.

So to describe gravity as 'bent space' (as Albert tries to)
is not the same thing as describing the universe as a 4-d sphere:
A sphere with 4 dimensions of space.
Time is something else utterly entirely and completely.

Albert's reasons for making the errors are legion and complex.
Forget spacetime.
There is time, and there are 4 dimensions of space.
The 4th dimension of space normally cannot be seen,
but we can detect it. We get hints at it.
And eventually,
with enough practice.
You can find it.
And travel in it.
Some have called it
the Astral plane.

It has 2 directions,
like all other dimensions of space.
(Unlike time)

This is where part of the Soul resides.
The soul, unlike the body,
has many dimensions,
certainly more than 3.

How can we conceive of a 4-d object with a 3-d brain?
Can we fit a sphere into a circle?

Can we fit a cube into a flat square?

NO!

How then can we fit a 4-d concept into a 3-d brain???



_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Obvious Leo on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:46 pm

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:If you accept gravity you have already accepted space
because
gravity is defined in terms of space.

In spacetime physics it is but let's not forget that in spacetime physics gravity is accepted as a non-mechanical action-at-a distance force. In my part of the world this sort of idea is generally called magic in polite company and simply bollocks by the less polite.

The mechanical connection between gravity and time is both physical and measurable but the connection between gravity and space is neither physical nor measurable because space has no physical properties. The curved space is either a metaphor or a faith-based claim but what it most certainly isn't is a physical property of reality.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:08 pm

If you have accepted gravity,
you must accept:
mass, force, time and space.



Gravity as we experience it is precisely confined to 3-d space
which is why it decreases to the inverse of the square
as this diagram demonstrates:



At 3 times the distance it spreads out over 9 times the area.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:07 pm

If you accept gravity you have already accepted space
because
gravity is defined in terms of space.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Obvious Leo on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:10 pm

I'm not a fan of the space hypothesis, Jon, because 3D space is a mathematical construct and not a physical one. I claim that Newton was wrong and that Leibniz was right all along. Therefore spacetime is not a physical model but merely a mathematical representation of a physical model. The way I express this is by saying that spacetime is Kant's phenomenon which is obscuring Kant's underpinning noumenon, which is in fact a fractal continuum of time and gravity. Time and gravity must both be ontologically real entities because they bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature. This means that time and gravity are simply two different ways of expressing the same thing and can therefore be quantised equivalently, the 3D space becoming nothing more than an observer effect. Effectively you are bound to the surface of the earth because time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet, although a more precise way of saying this is that your head is continuously coming into existence more quickly than your feet. I claim that this is quantum gravity and that this interpretation is perfectly consistent with the evidence. Furthermore this interpretation yields testable predictions which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime paradigm.

This may all sound a bit bizarre but since it makes every single counter-intuitive absurdity in physics simply vanish I reckon it's a small price to pay.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:25 pm

I am curious as to how the notion of a fixed quanta of time (Planck time)
can be reconciled with time speeding up and slowing down.

Surely if time for object A is different as it is for B,
and for A time 'ticks' at one quanta,
then for B it can only tick at one quanta as well.

If it does not, then a quanta of time is not a quanta of time.
Any change in the quanta of time, contradicts the very notion
of a quanta of time.

If an object moves 4 units of space in 1 unit of time;
and we slow down time so that it moves 4 units of space in 2 units of time,
then all we have done is slowed the velocity, as it now moves 2 units of space in 1 unit of time.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

The most inconstant of constants

Post by Obvious Leo on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:04 pm

There are lots of logical inconsistencies in physics but the so-called constant speed of light is one of my special favourites because the speed of light is actually the most inconstant speed in the universe. The speed of light is determined by gravity and gravity is continuously variable (although quantised) from the cosmological scale all the way down to the Planck scale. This is quantum gravity.

The latest gee-whiz caesium clock is a pretty fancy gadget. This work has been done by Andrew Ludlow at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in Colorado.

The "ticks" of atomic clocks are the hyper-regular switching of atoms between two energy levels. For now, it is stressed, the most accurate definition of a second is the amount of time it takes a group of caesium atoms to swing between states 9,192,631,770 times. If you were to run this new clock for around 100 million years it would only gain or lose about a second, it is claimed.

Ludlow's clock could allow us to detect how an object just one centimetre above another might age differently, as described by Einstein's general relativity. Since this contraption is about the size of a Volkswagen we’ll assume that this conclusion has been derived from calculation rather than from direct empirical testing but I’m happy to take the bloke’s word for it. A clock on the carpet will run faster than one on the bare floorboards beside it, even though the caesium atoms within it will swing between states precisely the same number of times.

The clock geeks reckon their next goal is to devise a clock which would gain or lose less than a second in 10 billion years but even such a clock would be a sundial compared with Superman’s clock, which can detect time intervals as brief as the Planck interval, a duration of 5.4 x 10(-44) seconds. No matter whereabouts in the universe we choose to place two of Superman’s clocks it will be utterly impossible to synchronise them. The clock on the electron runs faster than one on the nucleus it orbits and at a different speed from the other electrons orbiting the same nucleus. Every single sub-atomic particle in the universe runs to its own time and this speed of time is continuously changing, yet we must bear in mind that the sub-atomic scale is still 20 orders of magnitude bigger than the Planck scale, where the speed of time must likewise be continuously variable. Superman's clock can measure all this.

This is a very big deal because the speed of light is always measured to be a constant in the referential frame of the observer doing the measuring. This makes the speed of light the most inconstant speed in the universe, variable all the way down to the Planck scale, because the speed of light and the speed at which time passes are one and the same thing. If we put Ludlow’s clock inside the most massive of black holes its caesium atoms will still swing between states 9,192,631,770 times per second. AS MEASURED LOCALLY. Black holes slow EVERYTHING down.

Albert Einstein was a charming man with a robust sense of humour and he certainly didn’t mind a laugh at his own expense. I reckon he’d be able to see the funny side of this argument because it shows that he successfully managed to disprove the a priori premise on which his entire house of cards was fabricated. Gravitational lensing turns out to be no more mysterious a phenomenon than the bent stick in the water of our high school days. An observer effect.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The most inconstant of constants

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum