Re: Is temporal sign ambiguity inherent in Einstein's general relativistic field equation?
- From: Oh No <NotI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 05:48:07 +0000 (UTC)
Thus spake John Bell <john.bell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake tttito <vecchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>This comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding. I have no
John Bell ha scritto:
tttito wrote:
I am unable
to understand some of Charles' claims,
Ditto.
Unfortunate. You could try grilling me on gr-qc/0604047 or gr-
qc/0508077. I would be most appreciative if it helped me to find ways of
expressing myself that were easier to understand.
difficulty understanding your linguistic expression of your beliefs, I
just don't understand beliefs that are inconsistent with experiential
knowledge and rigorous logical deduction. In this context I also intend
responding to your earlier posting in due course, unless the moderator
has closed that possibility in the meantime.
I would appreciate it, since I have failed to find anywhere where I am
contradicted either by experimental knowledge or by deduction from
empirical fact. I am, of course, contradicted by deduction from false
assumptions within standard formulations of physics, and we will have to
be a little careful about that. You will, I take it, accept, that while
we have no complete consistent model incorporating gr and qt there must
be some false assumptions somewhere?
Your comment also contains the implied assumption that we have
something to gain by adopting your beliefs, as opposed to vice versa.
That assumption can be objectively tested by asking the following
questions:
1) Does your understanding contain anything new (i.e. unpublished)?
Yes. Although at the basis of it was stated by Von Neumann has already
stated the fundamentals, that quantum logic is a language which tells us
what information can be derived from experiment, and Descartes pointed
out that position is a relative quantity, I think I have fleshed out
that position a bit, and I have certainly made derivations which have
not been published. The teleconnection is entirely new, and it is this
which leads to most of the verifiable predictions.
2) If so, do those new components allow you to make original
predictions?
Yes.
3) If so, have a plurality of those predictions subsequently been
independently verified by experiment and/or astronomical observation?
The only problem I have here is with the word subsequent. I have made a
number of predictions for which experiments are expected to be carried
out within the next few years. Otherwise, in view that predictions have
only been made very recently, starting from last year, I mostly have to
be satisfied with results from observations which actually predated the
prediction, even if I did not know about those observations at the time
of the prediction. For example I have predicted that galaxy profiles
predicted from lensing would be inconsistent with those from galaxy
rotation curves and both would be inconsistent with galaxy evolutionary
models. I subsequently searched the literature and found that this is
already known to be true. I have predicted that galaxies at high red
shift are already much more mature than the standard model would have us
believe. I subsequently found that galaxies had been observed at much
higher redshifts than I knew, and that the prediction had again been
supported.
Otherwise we will have to wait a few years for more observations. It is
true that I knew about Pioneer and MOND before making the derivations.
But I have predictions that MOND will be violated within the Milky way
when we are able to accurately plot the speeds and positions of stars at
different angles from the earth and the galactic center. We will have to
wait until the launch of Gaia in 2011 to confirm that. I have
predictions about the pioneer shift which JPL are intending to measure
in future tests.
Otoh I am not immune from mistakes. Since putting the teleconnection
paper on arxiv I found I had miscalculated the magnitude redshift
relation. When I recalculated the relation I had a prediction which I
was then able to test against data and I found a better fit than
standard. I have not yet replaced the paper, as much of this is ongoing
research, so if you do look at it, ask me to email you an up to date
copy. The prediction cannot be satisfactorily tested without a number of
observations of supernova at redshifts >1.5; we don't have yet enough
observations to say.
Relational Quantum Mechanics holds that this simple fact is built intoIn that case I reserve judgement, since the philosophy can equally well
the mathematical quantum formalism of quantum theory at a fundamental
level.
be applied to excuse sloppy logic, in situations where all observers
can't agree.
Indeed. Although I am not sure what you mean by "sloppy logic". I assume
you accept that crisp, or two valued logic, does not apply to all
sentences in language. But I am not sure that I would say that fuzzy
logic is "sloppy", since it is formal mathematical structure. Even more
so, I do not think either probability theory (treated formally as a many
valued logic) nor quantum logic can be described as "sloppy" since they
yield precise verifiable predictions, albeit statistical ones.
The obvious question "How do you know that the events are the same if
the accounts are different?" may be with us for some time.
In a sense that is not a question in RQM. I assume that there is a
physical universe which is as it is.
That appears to be a classical principle which became untenable when it
was realised that the classical 'impartial observer' had to be replaced
with the modern 'active participant'
The observer is still a part of a universe which is as it is. The point
of RQM is that when the fact that the observer is treated as a part of
the universe, not as somehow impartially outside of it, then the
fundamental principle can be restored.
What an observer can say about it
depends on his observations, however.
Nope, It depends on the combined effect of his observations and actions
(which amount to the same thing at the QM level). This I can confirm in
everyday life, as well as in QM labs.
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
While Rovelli has the merit of pinpointing the issue, a related idea
surfaced at around the same time in Hawking's QG work (see [2] and cf.
[3] for an instructive example example by John Baez). One might claim
that RQM harks back to Kierkegaard's notion of subjective truth, that
reportedly influenced Bohr. Among s.p.r. posters, Charles Francis and
Thomas Larsson have found RQM inspiring for their QG work.
My own version of RQM is actually based on a principle first clearly
stated by Descartes, that we cannot say where something is unless we say
where it is relative to other matter,
Of course. This statement closely follows the philosophy expounded by
Einstein in the fifth appendix of his popular exposition (1954).
My work is concerned with showing that this philosophy actually accounts
for qm as well as gtr. The teleconnection arises from using it to
compare remote coordinate systems, following reasoning in many ways very
similar to Einstein's arguments about defining the time remotely from a
clock. Einstein himself was trying to replace the affine connection,
which contains an unwarranted assumption about the behaviour of light.
together with a recognition thatYou are doing it again. This latter assertion is extremely tenuous when
measurement of position is somehow more fundamental than other
measurement, since all measurements can be reduced to a measurement of
position (e.g. the position of a pointer).
applied to concepts such as colour, taste,
Even those can be reduced to the position of the relevant sensor in the
nervous system.
temperature, and
which is typically measured by the position of the end of a column of
mercury or some such.
intelligence.
And how can we measure intelligence without measuring the actions of an
intelligent being, for example in terms of the position of the marks he
makes on paper in response to an IQ test?
You are therefore in danger of losing more than you gainIt is not my original observation. I believe De Broglie is one of a
by reducing reality universally to such a banal level.
number of great scientists who have put this forward. Unfortunately I
have never had time to research the history of the idea, however so I
can't cite references.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: ArXiv to "usuall" publication
- Next by Date: Re: Fun problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Is temporal sign ambiguity inherent in Einstein's general relativistic field equation?
- Next by thread: Re: Is temporal sign ambiguity inherent in Einstein's general relativistic field equation?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
