On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface >>>> of a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots >>>> around that world for exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case >>>> the light arrives at each point from each other point at exactly the same >>>> moment....isn't that saying edgar's p-time? >>>> >>> >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by "dots around the world for exact >>> intervals of the speed of light"--in terms of a standard spacetime diagram >>> from SR, what would the dots be? Different events along the path of a >>> single light ray, or events along the paths of multiple light rays >>> radiating from some other event, or something else? It is true that the >>> spacetime "distance" between any two points along a light-like path is >>> zero, if that's what you mean, but I don't see the connection between this >>> observation and the idea that the light arrives "at exactly the same >>> moment", I'm not sure how you're defining that phrase. "Same moment" >>> normally suggests a judgment about simultaneity, not a judgment about the >>> proper time along a particular path between events. Also, note that by >>> means of a zig-zag lightlike path (like that of a light ray bouncing >>> repeatedly between mirrors), you can connect *any* two points in spacetime >>> that are within one another's light cones by a path of zero proper >>> time--for example, there is a path of zero proper time between the >>> assassination of Julius Caesar and me sitting here typing this. So if you >>> were to define events "at exactly the same moment" in terms of the >>> existence of a path of zero proper time connecting the events, you'd have >>> to say that all events throughout history occurred "at exactly the same >>> moment" which is pretty clearly not how it works with Edgar's p-time. >>> >>> Jesse >>> >> >> Hi Jess/Brent - thanks for getting back, >> Perhaps I should backtrack to my first reaction reading your post. First >> off, I definitely am not at your level on relativity so get ready for one >> big pile of steaming ...misconception. I'll do the right thing, and keep it >> short. >> >> I thought that one of the big themes from the principle of equivalence >> and relativity via frames, was that there wasn't a complete resolution to >> the absolute, non-relativistic conception of what the whole universe is >> like., That you can't necessarily talk about a landscape in absolute terms >> at all. >> > Plenty of things aren't relative in relativity, like the proper time between two events on a given timelike worldline. As mentioned on the page at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm Einstein actually called his theory an "Invariententheorie" or "theory of invariance"--the name "relativity" was coined by Max Planck, and Einstein resisted it because he thought it would lead to the misconception that "everything is relative".
> >> I read liz's thread on block time (very helpful thanks Liz) and will be >> rephrasing this issue over there at some point too. >> >> It's funny because this came up for me first because I speculated with >> some guys (and dolls) a lot nearer your level than mine - maybe 3/4 years >> back - that spacetime had a definite geometry. They came back very firm it >> did not. That even between the Earth and the Sun you couldn't look at it >> that way. I must say I couldn't accept what they were saying and said so, >> because for me, the geometry would be very clear that there was this huge >> gravity well oneside, and this relativily tiny one the other (earth). >> >> But they maintained it wasn't legitimate to think that way and then when >> I wouldn't buy but didn't have the expertise to make a case from relativity >> knowledge, got the usual dressing down about intuition and how the world >> isn't intuitive and all the rest. >> >> So where do we actually stand? Was their point legitimate but subtly >> different to yours - and it's a case of I don't have the knowledge to tell >> them apart? >> > It depends exactly what they meant by "geometry"--are you still in touch with them so you can ask, or was the discussion online so it could be reviewed? I have always seen physicists use "spacetime geometry" to refer to the frame-independent notion of distance along paths in spacetime (including "geodesic" paths between events, which are local minima of proper length for spacelike paths, and local maxima of proper time for timelike paths) which can be calculated using the metric, see for example http://books.google.com/books?id=sBiWcWwTp5oC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA236 which says "In the framework of general relativity, the spacetime geometry is defined by a metric" or http://books.google.com/books?id=O3puAMw5U3UC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA7which says "So in relativity there is just one spacetime geometry defined by the metric and measured by both clocks and rods and by particle paths." More generally, there are two ways to define the "shape" of a curved surface--either in an "intrinsic" way which only depends on the lengths of different paths within the surface, as in general relativity and more generally in differential geometry as a whole, or in an "extrinsic" way where we situate the surface in a higher-dimensional "embedding space", like how the 2D surface of a sphere of radius R can be defined as the set of all points that satisfy x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2 in a 3D Euclidean space with axes x,y,z (this embedding is an "isometric" one, meaning that if you calculate lengths of paths on the surface using the embedding space, you get the same answer as you would using the metric on the surface). The extrinsic definitions seem to be more general and useful mathematically (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry#Intrinsic_versus_extrinsicfor a brief discussion), but I think we humans find the "embedding" notion more intuitive in terms of how we think of the "shape" of a surface. It turns out that curved spacetimes can also be "embedded" in an isometric way, but rather than embedding them in a higher-dimensional Euclidean space you embed them in a higher-dimensional version of "flat" Minkowski spacetime from SR. A while ago I came across an interesting post on the subject at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=290098 saying that "Chris Clarke* showed that every 4-dimensional spacetime can be embedded isometically in higher dimensional flat space, and that 90 dimensions suffices - 87 spacelike and 3 timelike. A particular spacetime may be embeddable in a flat space that has dimension less than 90, but 90 guarantees the result for all possible spacetimes." So if you want an intuitive picture, it's legitimate to think of the "geometry" of spacetime in terms of spacetime being a curvy 4D surface sitting in some higher-dimensional flat spacetime. The shape of this curvy surface should be totally specified by the metric. So, the long and short of it is that I think the people you were talking to were probably just mistaken when they said that spacetime doesn't have a definite geometry. The one interpretation I can think of is that they were actually talking about *spatial* geometry, not spacetime geometry--the geometry of space at a single moment depends on your choice of simultaneity convention (once you have done that, you define the geometry in terms of the lengths of all spacelike paths that have all the points along them confined to a single moment of time), so there isn't really a unique correct "shape of space". I suppose it might even be possible to choose a weird simultaneity convention where the gravity well of the Earth was actually deeper than the gravity well of the Sun, but I don't really know about that. Jesse > >> Or has this been a kind of furious debate within the field, or was a >> furious debate? Is the matter now resolved for blocktime, or is it still >> controversial, as say, MWI is in the quantum field? >> >> Could we start there? I'll obviously understand if your response is along >> the lines, you've been able to deduce my level from my words, and >> explaining this isn't going to work in a post, and I need to bugger off and >> read a text book. Of course. However...I would settle for a roughie, and >> the text book ain't likely to go down at the moment. >> >> Over to yous >> > > p.s. This isn't coming as some kind suckup to show Edgar I'm all lovin' > and no antipathy. I stand by the points I made to him, and fully expect > either a reasoned rejection following a careful reading, or indeed would > happily settle for no response but clear indication of taking on board in > changes in style, or attempts that way. What I wouldn't want though would > be to see the convictions that he feels and has obviously worked very hard > to develop, ground down in what would be an intellectually underhand way. > Which wouldn't need to be purposeful on the part of others, but just that > it is hard to stand up to a wall of rejection all by one's self. I mean, > he's not a crank proper whatever the outcome. > > He's not had a life that took him into the sciences, and not > everyone genuinely committed to knowing the truth gets the kind of life > that makes an academic career at all possible. He's clearly done a lot of > work, and I think for truth seekers that has to count very positively > whatever the flaws. Which I might add everyone on this list has been jolly > excellent at appreciating given the very large amount of attention he has > received despite some shortcomings in style. > > For me, what this is about, is firstly that no one can be expected to > simply go 'shucks I got that totally central piece of my life's work > wrong...guess I'll burn the book". That cannot be expected of anyone. So, > on the one side, the people with the mainstream expertise might need to > make a decision in a situation like this, what the goal actually is. Is it > to help someone really get it that some part of their theory is wrong? > Which were that the case, the psychological setup would not look good, > because it would never be clear how much was altruism, how much was > charity, and - for the guy standing alone - how much was effectively > dogmatic over-confidence in the current position in the mainstream. > > Over confidence can and does happen this way. Every single episode since > the dawn of science has seen large amounts of confidence in areas of > knowledge that actually were right out at the periphery of what was most > robustly understood at that point. Speaking of blocktime as history as > illustrated by Liz, the blocktime view of basically all instances of that, > was that key built in, implicit and unrealized assumptions, behaved like a > virus, and spread like wildfire to consensus. And, in hindsight, this > effect always proves to be the reason things didn't happen more quickly. > > I think that's salutary lesson at a time like this, when things have got > that hard at the frontier there is a real prospect that things could grind > to a halt. Not everyone here may buy that this is a prospect, but a large > constituency at the frontier or concerned about with the knowledge to be > worth hearing, are saying exactly this. Most notable of late would be the > 'Cambridge statement' or whatever...a paper of leading researchers that > described the issues and the risk, among other things comparing it to a > period like this toward the end of the 19th century. > > I think that, at a time like this, the dedicated man from the periphery > has a special value. Most cases these men will be wrong, or unworthy in > some unbearable way. But the occasional chap that isn't, should be used as > a valueable opportunity, to really go over the things thought settled that > he apparently contradicts. > > It also happens to be the case, I should think, that the solution for how > to go about that, is also very much alike the sort of ideal process for > that man or woman from the periphery to be able to face up to something > that was not right, even were it to throw a life's work into question. > After all, these people are truth seekers. You just won't ever get as much > done purely on shallow narcissistic grounds as Edgar has got done. There's > always going to be a large dollop of outrageous ego in anyone that takes a > serious shot at a ToE. That's not just true of him, it's true of everyone > on this list that is quetily working away on a big idea, or does not rule > that out as a future development. > > So here's the process that I think nails something useful for the people > representing a consensus - at least among themselves here - and for Edgar. > It's based on a simple truth of any kind of problem solving. There are two > fundamentally different kinds of question that can be applied. They are > different, but they also form a pair, in which arguably neither side is > complete without the other. The first kind is the kind we're already well > underway with. The new idea is battered to bits by the best knowledge the > combined effort of - in this case humanity - and what it has to say. Very > important. This always has to happen, because it's daft right there to > think the combined efforts over centuries isn't almost certainly going to > be correct. > > The second kind, allows the outsider a fair hearing despite the fact good > sense says it's overwhelmingly unlikely to be right. The fair hearing is > hugely important because the best rule of thumb in the world is always > still defined by the exceptional case, no matter how rare it be. This is > the fundamental principle behind the jury system in legal affairs. Of > course, anyone in the profession of crime and punishment, whether policeman > or woman, defense/prosecution lawyer, or judge, quickly comes to know the > rule of thumb that most people are guilty as charged. For that reason, the > decision has to go to non-professionals in the community, and not be left > with the judge or the police or anyone understandly cynical about each next > face in the dock. > > Same principle here, different method for solution > > The method here, is that the outsider theory receives first, attention by > way of the following question being asked and followed up as thoroughly as > possible: > > "What would it take for this outsider principle to be true?" > > So that's the theme of..... > > Stage One: illustrated below, to some extent. In case it isn't clear, > this is all largely a personal view...but the basis of the 'question' in > speech marks above, is actually common in many realms involving hard > problems. > > Why is it the first stage ideally? because the consensus body recognize > that it isn't easy to stand alone against the maelstrom, and also because > it's overwhelmingly likely the mainstream view will utterly tear the > outsider view apart. So for all those reasons, this stage one has to go > first. (we can't do that here in reality, but we could choose to switch > over to this process I will outline, before requiring any movement from > edgar) > > The same components are brought to bear. The same mainstream consensus > position is brought into play. But this formula, is that the mainstream > principle is put in the dock. What MINIMALLY would have to be wrong or only > partial, for the outsider principle to be correct? The approach to this has > to be as committed as the other way around. So there's no blanket > assertions allowed of the form "basically the whole edifice of scientific > knowledge (or a key advance like relativity) would be thrown out". Not > without a step by step argument that says so. > > There's also some built in checks and balances. One involves recognition > of what I said above about every single blocktime (historic) period since > the dawn of science. So what we're looking for is not that relativity is > wholly wrong because if that's the case, it's goodbye Edgar's theory > because relativity is about the best piece of science we've ever had or > sitting at that top table anyway. So we're explicitly talking about - and > coming clean about - the peripheral elements of relativity (or whatever). > There are going to be peripheral elements. there always are. Because, if > there weren't, there wouldn't be a problem unifying qm and relativity in > this case. > > Is blocktime a peripheral element? This shouldn't be answered in terms of > what YOU believe, but structurally and historically. Was it part of > Einstein's theory, which he directly inferred major non-trivial predictions > about, which were later verified in trumps? If so, it's not peripheral. But > if that isn't the standing of blocktime, it's at least more peripheral than > the parts that do have that standing. If it was controversial right up to > recently, or still is, it's right out there at the periphery. > > If that is the standing of blocktime, then the non-peripheral parts of > relativity do not have a solution for the absolute god's eye view of > reality, and that being the case, Edgar's vision is a candidate for that. > In whichy case, we play the game 'What would it take for his idea to be > true (at bare minimum)" > > Another built part of the process, is that we make an effort to compare > what Edgar's theory offers that is distinct from relativity (that being the > major competitor). This is because, they might offer very different things > with very little overlap. In which case, again, it is worth playing the > game 'what would it take', because it might not take a lot and might be > compatible for the non-peripheral elements of relativity. > > I think this is quite likely the case here. Edgar has effectively pinned a > shedload of ideas, on a single critical conjecture for one aspect of > fundamental reality. P-Time. He's done the right thing by starting his case > for that, in aspects of reality most obviously true and intuitive. That's > the right way to start...the tautology as it were. > > I think he gets a lot wrong in making the selections that he does. They > aren't ideal for what an outsider theory needs to accomplish, because he's > landing hard at where key reasoning or consequences take place in one our > best pieces of science. Doing that requires major time his side acquiring > don-like expertise in relativity. It's a baddie his side. I also think he > gets a lot wrong in the way he reasons from those obvious everyday > insights. > > For one thing a ToE is inherently associated with a standard commiserate > with a theory for all of reality. People ignore the standard. They pretend > it isn't necessary or isn't real. But as Churchill said in a very different > context "......in the end, there it is" . > > Part of that standard, I think, is that if you are building a ToE, then > every independent component that you bring to bear, you must independently > have a major theory about, that ultimately proves consistent withm, and not > a tiny bit other than, the most core (least peripheral) elements of that > Toe. Edgar wants to use the 'obvious' directly. So he needs to have a > general theory, that as just one of its consequences, explains the nature > of the obvious, and with that, the comprehensive range of issues that his > methodology will need to compensate for in the course of his reasoning. > > But I guess that's my tuppence worth, which I'm very naugtilly trying to > sneak in. Take it or leave it. > > But back to the main point. Edgar's theory is well structured for this > 'what would it take' process, because he has nailed his colours to > something that everything else needs to be true. p-TIME. > > So finishing up (with apologies for gasbagging too long) it looks to me > that Edgar's theory is offering a solution for all of reality, which > relativity does not offer. He is minimally overlapping with relativity, > with p-time, such that his idea can be falsified to a reasonable standard > of proof, by relativity. > > But the question is, in this process, can his p-time be TRUE...maybe with > some modifications that do not destroy its essence WITHOUT the most > non-peripheral most powerfully authenticated core of relativity having to > be false? > > That's the process in a nutshell. The benefit to the consensus side is > that it's a rare opportunity to test and look at with new eyes what we > think must be so. We keep that grounded by making it cast iron requirement > that relativity must be uncontradiicted where it is non-peripheral. We > benefit by looking at relativity with new eyes in terms of what is and > isn't peripheral. The outsider man benefits because he gets to fully > engage with a clear sense he's being allowed a fair shot at the coconut. He > gets to learn something more about our very best theory perhaps. But either > way, in the event, he gets his day in a fair court, and you know, if he's a > truth seeker, that's probably all he wants. Truth seekers don't want that > day on their deathbed full of comforting self-delusion. If they did, they > would have chosen god. They want to KNOW, even if that's knowing they don't > know. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
