Re: Does any of this make sense ???
- From: duelearning@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Sep 2005 04:46:01 -0700
Hi, there (Dear Yrael ?):
Interesting strings of thought. I do share your feeling about
De-Mystifying power of gifted experts, whose intellegence are rareliy
fully duplicated in most of others. Nonetheless, we always agree that
there is a way for ordinary people to share those gifted ideas based on
every individual's his or her own personal experience and accumulated
knowledge already processed. I call it the way of "understanding
exchange".Interestingly, what I have discovered is that such
understanding exchange can be structured "molecularly",,named "Codon",
mimicking DNA molecule's structures and functions. Such structured
products in totality will help every individual 's learning, reasong or
say "Understanding Exchange in a direct way. Therefore, I give it a
name "Direct Understanding Exchange", "DUE" in short. Please visit my
web site for my recent article which describe about DUE in general.
Here's the link: http://due.hypermart.net/duelearningsystem/topic.html
Please write me your comments.
Thanks.
Hua
Yrael wrote:
> "De-Mystifying" Theoretical Physics
>
> I am not a professional physicist. I am nothing but an enthusiastic
> amateur. Neither am I a professional mathematician. I would rate my level
> of mathematical knowledge as probably just above A-Level standard. So I am
> unable to manipulate the tensors of String Theory, and I am also unable to
> completely understand the technical details behind most Quantum Physics
> experiments. But I believe that my lack of formal knowledge may have
> actually helped me to uncover certain valid identifications of semantic and
> philosophical errors in Theoretical Physics which many esteemed
> professionals either seem to deliberately ignore or not consider as
> important. I, however, feel that identifying and explaining these semantic
> and philosophical errors is extremely important. My identifications are not
> "earth shattering". They don't contain anything which is not already
> totally obvious to any professional physicist. So I don't believe for one
> second that any explanations I write here will help any professional
> physicists with their actual research or anything like that. My ego is not
> that big! But I do believe that these explanations may help (some)
> professional physicists when they write their "popular science" books and
> attempt to "de-mystify" Theoretical Physics for the general public. I have
> come to the conclusion that some of the explanations I have read in "popular
> science" books do not actually "explain" anything at all. And I have also
> read some attempts at "de-mystification" which have actually left me feeling
> more "mystified" than I was in the first place!
>
> We may not know exactly how the "Universe" works, but most of us know how
> "politics" works. Politicians want to stay in Office, and to do this they
> must gain public support. It is not in the politicians' own self interest
> to give research grant money to something which the general public feels
> "alienated" from. This is obviously why Theoretical Physics must be made
> more accessible and interesting to the general public. And explanations
> written by top scientists which do not actually "explain" anything are not
> really helping matters.
>
> I, and thousands of other enthusiasts, would love to see a "Supercollider"
> built with an energy capacity which may be capable of proving the existence
> of the "Higgs Boson" or something similar. So my "de-mystifying"
> identifications and explanations are my, unfortunately miniscule,
> contributions to the cause.
>
> The first thing I would like to address is the way the "mystery" which
> physicists call "The Arrow of Time" is treated in most popular science
> books. In their "Arrow of Time" discussions, many esteemed physicists pose
> the question of: "Why does time always flow forwards?" Or, stated another
> way: "Why does time never flow backwards?" And they then go on to attempt
> to answer these questions by talking about thermodynamics and entropy etc.
> I will show that even asking these questions is semantically and
> philosophically incorrect. And I will also show that their
> thermodynamic/entropic explanations are actually attempting to answer a
> completely different (but semantically valid) question. Furthermore, I will
> give a totally complete and correct answer to the semantically and
> philosophically ridiculous question of "Why does time never flow backwards?"
> in just one short sentence. There is no need for a whole chapter of a book
> to answer this question; one short sentence is completely sufficient. But I
> have never read this "one sentence explanation" in any popular science book,
> and I really don't know why it is not used in ALL physics related popular
> science books!
>
> In order for the "Arrow of Time mystery" to become totally non-mysterious,
> we first need to understand what time actually is. Some esteemed physicists
> do not seem to fully understand a principle called "The Map is not the
> Territory". Time appears in their equations along with other variables like
> mass etc which actually exist in reality; and because of this, they seem to
> see time as a real facet of existence (like mass etc). And, consequently,
> they seem to think that they can use time to explain things in the same way
> as they would use other real facets of existence (like mass etc) to explain
> things. This is the problem! It isn't, so they can't! And if they do,
> their explanations are worthless because they are not actually "explaining"
> anything at all! I have actually read a book in which an esteemed physicist
> attempted to answer the "Why does time never flow backwards?" question by
> referring to a thermodynamic equation (in which "time" was one of the
> variables) as part of his explanation. This is patently ridiculous. You
> can't explain the properties of a "something" by using that same "something"
> as part of the explanation. Even if the "something" is actually real, you
> are not actually explaining anything at all if you do that. And what makes
> this physicist's "explanation" even more ridiculous is the fact that he was
> using an equation which exhibits "time-reversal symmetry" (as do all these
> type of equations) in an attempt to show why "time never flows backwards"!
> What this physicist was actually attempting to do was to answer this
> completely different (but semantically valid) question, as I mentioned
> earlier. I cannot believe that he didn't seem to realise that this was what
> he was actually doing! So I can only assume that he was deliberately
> ignoring it, or didn't feel that it was important. Anyway, the point I am
> making is that this "non-explanation" didn't help the general reader at all.
>
> Even the great Albert Einstein made a subtle variation of this same
> fundamental philosophical "error" in his theories of special and general
> relativity. And this error caused Einstein (and everyone else) to draw
> inferences about the "structure of reality" which are actually totally
> opposite to the inferences they could have drawn if this fundamental error
> had not been made. I will fully explain Einstein's fundamental
> philosophical "error" shortly. But, as I said earlier, in order to
> understand "The Arrow of Time" and Einstein's fundamental philosophical
> error, you will first need to be armed with a complete understanding of what
> time actually is. So, here we go!
>
> What actually is time?
>
> This is an "official" definition of time:
>
> "Time is a dimension that enables two otherwise identical events that occur
> at the same point in space to be distinguished.
> -- A Dictionary of Physics (ISBN: 0-19-280030-2)"
>
> I believe that calling time a "dimension" is seriously misleading to the
> general public. To include time as a dimension along with the other three
> dimensions of height, width and depth to make four dimensional "space-time"
> creates a major area of "misunderstanding" for the general public. It
> allows people to believe that they can treat the "dimension" of "time" in
> the same way as they can treat the other three dimensions. And, therefore,
> it allows people to ask totally illogical questions like: "Why does time
> never run backwards? etc. Most people do not realise that four dimensional
> "space-time" is nothing but a "mathematical model" which happens to be
> extremely good at predicting the results of various experiments. In fact,
> Einstein's equations were so successful at predicting the results of
> experiments that people started believing that these "mathematical models"
> actually WERE REALITY and not just representations of reality. But, however
> accurate at predicting "reality" Einstein's equations are, they are NOT
> actually REALITY. They are nothing but mathematical REPRESENTATIONS OF
> REALITY which happen to be able to predict ACTUAL REALITY extremely well.
> To confuse a "representation of reality" with "actual reality" is to fail to
> understand a principle called "The Map is not the Territory". I believe
> that "The Map is not the Territory" type of misunderstanding is very common
> among the general public. And even some esteemed physicists seem to fall
> victim to it on the odd occasion.
>
> Anyway, back to my question: What actually is time?
>
> Here are some "semantically and philosophically correct"
> definitions/descriptions of what time actually is:
>
> Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
> definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
> "dimensions" of height, width and depth. In fact, time is nothing but a
> totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
> of the universe whatsoever.
>
> Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
> invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
> quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
> of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
> more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
> nonsensical and totally invalid.
>
> In the last paragraph, I gave a precise definition/description of time. But
> this precise definition of time does not provide a complete "explanation" of
> what time actually is, nor does it give any real indication of what valid
> conclusions can be drawn from it. So, because it is essential to completely
> understand exactly what time actually is in order to proceed further, I will
> now spend some time giving a few examples and "scenarios" etc. Hopefully,
> by the end of this next section, the exact nature of time will be so
> familiar to you that it will just become "second nature" to think about time
> in this "new" way.
>
> First of all, it's important to completely understand the answer to this
> question: "How do we actually measure time?" The short answer is that the
> only possible way we can measure time is by counting (and sometimes
> comparing) "changing patterns of existence". And the more similar these
> "changing patterns of existence" are to each other, the more "accurate" our
> "measure of time" will be. A good example of this is a grandfather clock.
> Some very handy laws of nature have decreed that, whether a pendulum is
> swinging quickly or slowly, each swing of that pendulum will take the same
> amount of "time". This is (basically, but not exactly) how a Grandfather
> clock works. Each swing of the pendulum moves a cogwheel one notch, and
> this is translated by others cogs etc to the movements of the hands on the
> clock face. So basically we are counting "changing patterns of existence"
> by using a cogwheel to count each swing of the pendulum. And because these
> "changing patterns of existence" are similar, our "measure of time" will be
> "accurate".
>
> You could argue a semantic point here with me by saying that "You are not
> measuring a "CHANGING pattern of existence" because the "duration" of the
> pendulum's swing IS ALWAYS THE SAME". But this is not what I mean by
> "changing patterns of existence". I mean that the "actual pattern of
> existence" is changing. For example: If you were to make a video recording
> of your grandfather clock's swinging pendulum, and then play it back frame
> by frame; you would see the pendulum in a slightly different position in
> each frame. Each frame would show you a slightly different "pattern of
> existence" which had changed from the previous one. And even if you were to
> compare different frames which showed the pendulum to be in exactly the same
> position, that would only confirm to you that the "pattern of existence" was
> repeating. You could easily confirm that the actual "pattern of existence"
> was really changing by looking at the frames before and after the frame you
> were originally looking at. Just because a "pattern of existence" is
> repeating, it does not mean that it isn't changing. In fact, if a "pattern
> of existence" is repeating, it actually proves that it IS changing. It has
> to change to a different "pattern" in order to be able to repeat its
> previous "pattern". If it didn't change, it wouldn't be repeating. It
> would just be staying the same.
>
> Now that we have established that a repeating "pattern of existence" must
> also be a "changing pattern of existence", we can further clarify things by
> using the "video recording the pendulum" example to conclusively prove that
> the process of measuring time is absolutely nothing more than counting (and
> sometimes comparing) "changing patterns of existence". It is totally
> obvious by now that the more similar to each other these "changing patterns
> of existence" are, (for example, the pendulum's repeating swing), the more
> "accurate" your "measure of time" will be. So I will not mention this
> again, as it is not really an important factor in understanding what time
> actually is anyway.
>
> Let's say that we wanted to verify that a certain pendulum's swing will
> always take the same amount of "time" whatever "speed" that pendulum is
> actually moving at, and whatever distance its swing actually covers. We
> could easily do this by adjusting the "frame counter" on your video camera
> so that it adds a consecutive number to each frame that it records. Then we
> could start the pendulum swinging, and film the pendulum until it stops
> swinging. We could then choose which side of the swing we wanted to measure
> it from, right hand side or left hand side; it doesn't matter. But for
> example let's say we chose the right hand side. Then we could locate all
> the frames in your video recording where it shows the pendulum at the
> extreme right hand side of its swing. Then we could "count" the number of
> frames between each of these extreme right hand side positions. Any we
> would find that, whatever distance the extreme right hand side of the swing
> was from the position where the pendulum is vertical, the number of frames
> between all the extreme right hand side positions would always be equal. So
> we have now verified that the "time" of that pendulum's swing is always the
> same, whatever "speed" or distance it actually swings. (If there are any
> Ph.D. physicists reading this, please be aware that I know that this is not
> "absolutely" correct and foolproof, partly because we are not measuring the
> swing using its vertical as a standard. I am simply using it as a basic
> example to illustrate something that I will mention shortly).
>
> Anyway, furthermore, because we have read the instruction manual and we know
> how many frames our video camera can film "per second", we can now also
> measure the actual "time" it took for each swing as well as verifying that
> the "duration" of the swings were all equal. (Are you now thinking: "Why is
> he stating the blindingly obvious?" If you are, hopefully it will become
> clear why I am doing it very shortly).
>
> Now, let's have a look at what we have actually done. What have we actually
> measured, and how have we actually measured it?
>
> First of all, by "counting" and "comparing" the difference between certain
> frames, we verified that the "changing pattern of existence" which we are
> calling "the pendulum's swing" has a certain constant and repeatable aspect.
> Then, by adding a "frame counter" to our video recording and knowing how
> many frames we recorded "per second", we came up with a value for this
> repeatable aspect which we call "time". So, now, we have used this value
> which we call "time" to "quantify" the "duration" of the pendulum's swing.
>
> So, how have we measured this "time"? All we have actually done is counted
> certain "changing patterns of existence" and compared them with other
> "changing patterns of existence". i.e. One "changing pattern of existence"
> was the pendulum's swing and the other "changing pattern of existence" was
> the film running through our video camera. And by doing this, we have ended
> up with a "numerical value" which we call "time". Remember this: all we
> have ended up with is a "NUMERICAL VALUE".
>
> So, where is this "dimension" called "time" that I read about in the
> "official" definition? It isn't actually anywhere, is it? If a simple
> "numerical value" which is obtained by counting and comparing a couple of
> changing patterns is a "dimension", then we may as well call ANYTHING a
> "dimension"! For example: I could count the different number of ways that
> I can arrange the row of letters XYZ and derive a numerical value of "six
> different ways" for an answer. Is the number "six" now a "dimension"? I
> have counted six "patterns of existence" here, so why isn't the number "six"
> a "dimension" as well? I think it's obvious what I'm trying to say here.
> It's this: we really need a more precise definition of what a "dimension"
> actually is!
>
> I will re-state some "semantically and philosophically correct"
> definitions/descriptions of "time" here:
>
> Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
> definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
> "dimensions" of height, width and breadth. In fact, time is nothing but a
> totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
> of the universe whatsoever.
>
> Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
> invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
> quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
> of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
> more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
> nonsensical and totally invalid.
>
> Can you see now why this definitions/descriptions are correct, and the
> "official" definition is misleading? If not, you will probably see it after
> this next example.
>
> But, before this next example, I think it would be useful to state how a
> standard period of time is actually defined. Here it is:
>
> "One SI Second (atomic second) is the interval of "time" taken to complete
> 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the Caesium 133 atom exposed to a suitable
> excitation".
>
> In other words: We "count" the oscillations of the "changing pattern of
> existence" which we call "the exited Caesium 133 atom" until we arrive at a
> "numerical value" of 9,192,631,770. Then, we say that this "period of time"
> is equal to "one second".
>
> Well, this is the "official" definition of "one second of time". I can't
> see any "dimensions" here, can you"? Personally, I can only see some
> changing patterns which are repeating, some counting and a numerical value.
> Can you see now that the "flow" of time does not exist anywhere other than
> inside our own minds?
>
> Consider this example. Let's imagine a universe that was completely static
> and unchanging. This universe would contain no "time". Now, let's imagine
> that you invented a spaceship with a "stringbuster" drive which allowed you
> to "jump" out of our universe and visit this static and unchanging universe.
> Well, as soon as you arrived in this new universe, this new universe now
> definitely WOULD contain time. And as you observed its strange static and
> unchanging ways from the safety of your spaceship, you would experience the
> "flow of time" in exactly the same way as you would in our own universe.
> Why is this? It is because you brought your own "time" with you when you
> arrived there!
>
> The only reason we experience this "flow of time" is because we all carry
> our own "biological clocks" with us inside our own brains. Inside our
> brains, there are numerous "biological mechanisms" at work which are
> comparing certain "changing patterns of existence" which occur in our bodies
> with other "changing patterns of existence" which occur in our bodies. And
> the workings of these various "biological mechanisms" are responsible for
> giving us the "feeling" which we experience as "the flow of time". And that's
> all it is: a feeling! Time is nothing but "changing patterns of existence".
> The "flow of time" only actually exists as a biologically created "feeling"
> inside our own brains. Time, as a real "entity", DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.
>
> Once again, here are some "semantically and philosophically correct"
> definitions/descriptions of what time actually is:
>
> Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
> definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
> "dimensions" of height, width and breadth. In fact, time is nothing but a
> totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
> of the universe whatsoever.
>
> Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
> invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
> quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
> of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
> more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
> nonsensical and totally invalid.
>
> So, at last, we arrive at the semantically and philosophically correct
> answer to the question: "Why does time never flow backwards?"
>
> This is the answer: "Time never flows backwards (or forwards, or anywhere)
> because TIME DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST!"
>
> (Obviously, something that doesn't even exist can't flow anywhere or do
> anything!)
>
> The actual (semantically valid) question that is really being asked by the
> "Why does time never flow backwards?" question would be something like this:
>
> "Why don't all the "patterns of existence" which have changed just "undo"
> themselves and sequentially revert back through the state changes they have
> undergone?"
>
> This is the REAL question that the physicists are actually trying to answer
> with their thermodynamic/entropic "explanations" and equations. But, even
> then, some of these physicists do not seem to understand (or seem to
> deliberately ignore) the fact that a mathematical equation does not actually
> "explain" anything! This is a good example of not realising (or
> deliberately ignoring) the fact that THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.
>
> Anyway, on to Einstein and his four-dimensional "space-time" etc.
>
> Because of Einstein's equations, it is frequently stated that: "Time slows
> down when under the influence of acceleration or a gravitational field".
>
> Well, we have just established that "time" doesn't actually exist. So time
> can't actually "slow down" or "speed up" or do anything really. Therefore
> the statement "Time slows down when under the influence of acceleration or a
> gravitational field" is obviously semantically and philosophically
> incorrect.
>
> What actually happens is that: EXISTENCE "slows down" under the influence of
> acceleration or a gravitational field.
>
> In other words, "changing patterns of existence" do not change as "quickly"
> under the influence of acceleration or a gravitational field as they would
> if the acceleration or gravitational field was not present.
>
> Or, to give a specific example: A suitably excited Caesium 133 atom would
> take "longer" to complete 9,192,631,770 oscillations under the influence of
> acceleration or a gravitational field than it would take to complete
> 9,192,631,770 oscillations if it wasn't under the influence of acceleration
> or a gravitational field.
>
> In fact, atomic clocks have been used to "prove" the semantically incorrect
> assertion that "time slows down" under the influence of acceleration or a
> gravitational field. Various people have been given "portable" atomic
> clocks and then sent either into space or on very fast accelerating
> aeroplanes etc. Then, when these people return from their "acceleration
> trips", their atomic clocks are compared with other atomic clocks which have
> not undergone these "accelerations". And, upon comparison, it is always
> found that the atomic clocks which have undergone "acceleration" have
> recorded a "shorter" period of "time" than the atomic clocks which did not
> undergo "acceleration". Then, it is said that the people who carried the
> atomic clocks on the aeroplanes are a few microseconds "younger" than the
> people who stayed on the ground etc. Well, that's as may be. But nothing
> about "time" has actually been explained by these "measurements", has it?
>
> There are a few different types of "atomic clock". But, for the purposes if
> illustration, let's imagine that the type of atomic clock used in these
> "time slowing down" experiments were the "Caesium 133" type that I mentioned
> earlier.
>
> Well, again, we established earlier that "time" doesn't actually exist. So
> it is not "time slowing down" that is making the "accelerated" atomic clocks
> record a shorter period of "time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks.
> The only way that something which does not actually exist can affect
> something is for it to be "conceptualised" by the brain of an animal, and
> then acted upon by that animal. Like me writing this last paragraph, for
> instance.
>
> Anyway, something is "slowing down" and making the "accelerated" atomic
> clocks record a "shorter" period of "time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic
> clocks. So, if it's not "time" itself slowing down", then what is it? It
> is actually "changing patterns of existence" which are "slowing down". All
> the "patterns of existence" which are under the influence of "acceleration"
> will change at a rate which is "slower" than the rate they would change at
> if they were not under the influence of "acceleration". Including the
> "changing patterns of existence" which we refer to as "oscillating Caesium
> 133 atoms" in our "accelerated" atomic clocks!
>
> i.e. A suitably excited Caesium 133 atom will not oscillate as "quickly"
> under the influence of "acceleration" as it would oscillate if it was not
> under the influence of "acceleration".
>
> The reason that the "accelerated" atomic clocks record a "shorter" period of
> "time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks is because the oscillating
> Caesium 133 atoms in the "accelerated" atomic clocks have not "oscillated"
> as many times as the oscillating Caesium 133 atoms in the "non-accelerated"
> atomic clocks. And because 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the Caesium 133
> atom is recorded by the atomic clocks as "one second", it is obvious that it
> is going to take "longer" to record "one second" on the "accelerated" atomic
> clocks than it is going to take to record "one second" on the
> "non-accelerated" atomic clocks. Therefore, when the "accelerated" and
> "non-accelerated" atomic clocks are compared, the "accelerated" atomic
> clocks are obviously going to register that a "shorter" period of "time" has
> elapsed than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks. i.e. Less "oscillations"
> = less "time" recorded.
>
> So where are we now? We have established that "time" doesn't actually exist
> in reality and, because of this, we have also been able to correct a few
> semantically "dodgy" questions and statements which were misleading in their
> previous forms. We have established that "time" is nothing but "changing
> patterns of existence". And we have also established that the "measurement"
> of "time" is actually nothing but "counting" and "comparing" certain
> "changing patterns of existence" with other "changing patterns of existence"
> in order to arrive at a simple "numerical value". Then, with these
> "understandings" under our belt, it became obvious that it was "existence
> itself" that "slows down" under the influence of acceleration or a
> gravitational field - not "time".
>
> But this last observation leads us logically on to another observation.
> i.e. SOMETHING must be causing "patterns of existence" to change more
> "slowly" when they are under the influence of acceleration or a
> gravitational field. And this SOMETHING leads us on to the subject of
> Einstein's fundamental "error", which I mentioned earlier.
>
> Albert Einstein's "mathematical models" which describe something known as
> "space-time" are extremely successful at predicting the results of various
> "experiments". And, incidentally, so is something called "The Standard
> Model". "The Standard Model" is excellent at predicting the probabilities
> and results of various Quantum Mechanical type experiments, even though it
> contains about a dozen completely "made up out of thin air" terms or
> "constants" which are necessary to make the equations work at all. However,
> Einstein's "space-time" representation of the universe only seems to contain
> approximately ONE "dodgy" aspect. But, unfortunately, this "dodgy" aspect
> is "time".
>
> Before Einstein formulated his equations, it was generally assumed that some
> kind of "carrier medium" was necessary in order to explain the "wave like"
> ways that light seemed to propagate in. This was quite logical; because in
> order for a "wave" to propagate, it seemed obviously necessary to have
> something to actually "wave". For example: it would be extremely difficult
> to throw a pebble into a pond and make some waves if the pond in question
> didn't actually contain any water!
>
> The Michelson/Morley experiment was one famous attempt to detect this
> "carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" as it was then called. The
> details of the experiment as not important here but, basically, they weren't
> able to detect anything. There are actually some modern physicists who have
> identified some problems with some technical aspects of the experiment, but
> that is not relevant here either.
>
> What is relevant is that Einstein's "mathematical models" gave a way to
> accurately predict the behaviour of light etc, without the need to
> incorporate any kind of "carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" into the
> "workings". So, the presence of any kind of "carrier medium" or
> "luminiferous aether" was now superfluous in "explaining" the properties of
> light etc. Anyway, the "luminiferous aether" idea went out of favour after
> Einstein wrote his "equations".
>
> I believe that this was very unfortunate, and it was partly due to a
> fundamental non-mathematical philosophical "error" that Einstein made. I
> say that it was "unfortunate" because I will now show that Einstein's
> "relativity theories" actually SUPPORT the existence of some kind of
> "carrier medium" when this fundamental non-mathematical philosophical
> "error" is corrected. This "error" revolves around the logically and
> philosophically incorrect use of "time".
>
> I don't want to include any mathematics in my "explanations" so I will just
> summarise Einstein's conclusions here:
>
> (1) Einstein concluded that the universe was (at least partly) explainable
> if it was viewed as being composed of four dimensions. These dimensions
> were height, width, depth and "time". And furthermore, these dimensions
> combine to form an overall integrated reality which can be referred to as
> four dimensional "space-time". Or just "space-time" for short.
>
> This was Einstein's first "error" - One of the "dimensions" he used to form
> his "overall integrated reality" doesn't actually exist!
>
> (2) Einstein concluded that "gravity" was a manifestation which was produced
> when "space-time" was "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass".
>
> This was Einstein's second "error" - He attempted to treat "space-time" as
> if it was actually real, and not just the "mathematical model" that it
> actually only really is.
>
> OK, let's see how Einstein's "relativity theories" do not make the existence
> of some kind of "carrier medium" superfluous. In fact, they do the exact
> opposite and actually SUPPORT the existence of some kind of "carrier medium".
>
> (1) Einstein's equations predict that "Time slows down when under the
> influence of acceleration or a gravitational field". We showed earlier that
> it was actually "existence" and not "time" that "slows down" when under the
> influence of acceleration or a gravitational field. So, if space is
> actually empty and contains no kind of "carrier medium" of any kind, what is
> actually interacting with the matter which is under the influence of
> acceleration or a gravitational field in order to create the "slowing down"
> effect? There must be "something" interacting with the matter, otherwise it
> would not "slow down". Human "conceptualizing" aside, something which does
> not exist cannot affect something which does exist. So there must be
> something there which is affecting the matter which is under the influence
> of acceleration or a gravitational field. We can call this "something" a
> "carrier medium" or a "luminiferous aether" or anything else we like. But I
> think that we should give this "something" a definite name pretty soon.
> Because simple logic dictates that this "something" really does exist. And
> unlike "time", which only exists as a "concept" - this "something" is a
> "real" and "integral" part of the fabric of our universe.
>
> (2) By saying that "gravity" was a manifestation which was produced when
> "space-time" was "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass", it
> seems that Einstein unfortunately considered his "space-time" to be
> something which "actually existed" in reality, and was not just a
> "mathematical model" which was extremely good at predicting the results of
> various experiments. I believe this to be Einstein's fundamental
> philosophical "error". A clear case of mistaking the "Map" for the
> "Territory". I say "I believe" this to be Einstein's fundamental
> philosophical "error" and not that "it is" Einstein's fundamental
> philosophical "error" because I am not totally convinced that a person such
> as Einstein could make such a simple error as this. I have to be totally
> convinced of something before I am prepared to state it as "fact". But, I
> have to go on the evidence. You can't bend a "mathematical model" by
> placing it near to a "large mass". So, I can only assume that Einstein
> considered his "space-time" to have a physical existence which could
> actually be "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass". So, let's
> see where Einstein went wrong. For a start, we established earlier that
> time does not actually exist - so the physical existence of something that
> contains "time" as part of its "structure" is a logical impossibility. OK,
> we have now established that "space-time" only actually exists as a
> "concept" and a "mathematical model" and that it really has no actual
> existence in physical reality. Anyway, Einstein said that mass can bend
> "space-time"; but we have just proved that "space-time" does not actually
> have a physical existence. So, obviously, mass is not actually bending
> "space-time" at all, is it? But something is being bent, because "gravity"
> still exists even though "space-time" has been relegated to a mere "concept"
> which has no physical existence. So, let's take everything out of four
> dimensional "space-time" which is not "real", and see what we have left.
> OK. Height, that's real, keep it in. Width, that's real, keep it in.
> Depth, that's real, keep it in. Time, ah that's not real, take it out. So
> what have we got left for mass to "bend"? Well, we've only thrown away
> "time". So we've still got height, width and depth left. And, height, width
> and depth are the three "dimensions" of "physical space". So this is what
> mass must be "bending". It is now apparent that mass does not bend
> "space-time". Mass actually bends "space", not "space-time". And it only
> needs one more logical step to enable us to conclude that "space" cannot be
> empty. Because, if space was empty, there would be nothing there for mass
> to "bend" in order to produce the manifestation which we call "gravity". So
> we have come to the same conclusion that we made in (1) above. This
> conclusion is that "space" is not empty at all. This conclusion is that
> "space" MUST contain "something" which is capable if interacting with
> ordinary "matter" to produce the "effects" or "manifestations" which we call
> "time-dilation", gravity, inertia, particle/wave duality, and various other
> things.
>
> So there we are. By using the "concept" of "time" in its proper context, it
> is logical to conclude that Einstein's "relativity theories" actually
> SUPPORT the existence of some kind of "carrier medium" or "luminiferous
> aether" or whatever you want to call it. And this conclusion is the exact
> opposite of the inferences which were drawn when Einstein's equations
> produced their wonderfully accurate predictions which seemed to make the
> existence of a "carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" unnecessary or
> "superfluous".
>
> Actually, modern physics is now starting to seriously explore this
> "luminiferous ether" theory again, but it's not called the "luminiferous
> ether" any more. It's now called the "quantum foam" or the "string
> background" or something similar.
>
> One more thing before I leave poor old Einstein alone. I believe that
> Einstein's equation E = mc^2 has been used by many physicists in their
> "popular science" books in a way that gives the general public a completely
> misleading impression of what this equation actually represents. For
> example: I recently read somewhere that E = mc^2 represents the colossal
> amount of "energy" that is produced when "matter" is converted directly into
> "energy". At first glance this seems to be an OK explanation. Any number
> multiplied be the speed of light squared is certainly going to end up being
> pretty colossal. There is no doubt about that. But this is not the
> problem. This explanation leads the general public to believe that matter
> can be converted into some kind of weird stuff called "energy". And
> therefore it implies that this "energy" has some kind of independent
> existence which is separate from "matter". I have asked a few of my
> (non-scientific) friends what they thought that E = mc^2 actually meant.
> And some have told me that they are 100% certain that matter can be
> converted into energy by using atomic bombs or nuclear reactors etc, and
> that E = mc^2 is the formula that is used to work out the amount of energy
> which can be produced in the process. Well, they are sort of "half-right"
> by saying this. But none of my (non-scientific) friends seemed to realise
> that matter can NOT actually change into "energy". The only thing that
> matter can change into is other forms of matter. They don't seem to realise
> that "energy" is a sort of a "catch-all" term which is used to "explain" and
> "quantify" certain "changing patterns of existence". For example: consider
> an "annihilation event" in which an electron (-) and a positron (+) collide
> with each other to produce a "flash of energy". What actually happens in
> this an "annihilation event" is that the electron and the positron are
> converted into two "photons". And these two "photons" then fly off
> somewhere at the speed of light. This is what is meant by "energy".
> Electrons, positrons AND photons are all "particles of matter". No weird
> "substance" called "energy" has actually been created in this "annihilation
> event". The only thing that has been created is a different form of matter.
> So the term "energy" is just a "representation" of a "changing pattern of
> existence". I think that "popular science" books should give a better (and
> less misleading) explanation of what "energy" actually is.
>
> As well as "de-mystifying" a few things, let's see what we have been able to
> conclude by using nothing but simple logic and absolutely no mathematical
> equations at all. We have concluded that "time" doesn't actually exist. We
> have concluded that "existence" (not "time") slows down when under the
> influence of acceleration or a gravitational field. We have concluded that
> mass actually bends "space" and not "space-time". And from these
> conclusions we have also been able to conclude that a "carrier medium" or
> "luminiferous aether" or "quantum foam" or whatever you wish to call it -
> MUST ACTUALLY EXIST.
>
> These conclusions now cause me to ask another question: Why have I had to
> work all this out for myself? The logic which led to these conclusions is
> so simple that a child could follow it. So why haven't these conclusions
> been made by some people who are much "cleverer" than me many years ago?
>
> I can think of three possible answers to these questions:
>
> (1) I am talking out of my arse, and my "conclusions" are complete
> nonsense!
>
> Or:
>
> (2) My conclusions are "correct", and I have found a "new" way of
> looking at the "structure of reality" which nobody else has identified
> before.
>
> Or:
>
> (3) Some of my conclusions are valid, but some of my other
> conclusions are invalid.
>
> I think the most likely answer is number (1) because I can't believe that
> someone like me, with only an A-Level knowledge of physics, could see
> something that professors of physics have completely missed. But maybe the
> correct answer is number (3), I don't know.
>
> Anyway, if anybody would like to put me right on a few points: please feel
> free. I am not frightened of being wrong. I am only interested in finding
> out whether or not my conclusions are actually valid.
>
> I have actually used my "conclusions" to come up with some simple
> explanations to describe various other "aspects of reality". These include
> light, the "two-slit" experiment, mass, weight and certain other
> manifestations of "quantum weirdness". But I will not write them here now;
> in case someone points out an obvious "error" with something I have already
> written which may turn my new explanations into nonsense!
>
> I hope you enjoyed reading this. And please remember, ALL comments are
> welcome.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does any of this make sense ???
- From: bv_schornak
- Re: Does any of this make sense ???
- Prev by Date: Gravity by Hartle - solutions manual
- Next by Date: Re: Rigid rod problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Does any of this make sense ???
- Next by thread: Re: Does any of this make sense ???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
