> Please bring this century old debate to completion? It will be completed when completed, David.
> > Can someone give a short status update on what different people think? > Please, I am interested but cannot read all of it. 10-15 years ago I was > really into this and then I dropped out. Seems like an endless debate. > It is, in a sense. The point is that we actually have a theory that explains all this without a medium. So, that physical theory, which is purely geometrical, lacks physical reality. Until that contradiction is resolved(that of a physical theory lacking physical reality) the debate will continue, independently of the elapsed decades or centuries. Mauro > David > > David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> Mauro Lacy wrote: >> >> Mauro Lacy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: >> "We >> >>> >> > know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one >> hand >> > clapping?" We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: "We know the >> > interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is the >> > interference pattern of one stream of light?" >> > >> >> A diffraction pattern. >> >> >> > >> > A diffraction pattern in a medium, and depending on that medium. That >> is, >> > the effect is the result of an interaction. >> > >> >> I don't know what you mean by this. No "medium" is required. A single >> beam of light traveling through vacuum diffracts with itself (or >> interferes with itself, if you prefer; it's really the same effect). >> That's why lasers can never be perfectly collimated; the beam always >> spreads. >> >> Or have you discarded the usual meaning of the word "medium" in favor of >> something else? >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Or better yet: >> >>> "We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but >> what >> >>> >> > is the gravitational effect of one material body?" >> > >> >> Curves the metric. >> >> >> >> But without any other body in the universe there's nobody there to >> >> >> > measure it. >> > >> > So, an effect again arises as a result of an interaction. >> > >> > >> >> If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does >> it >> >> >> > make a sound? >> > >> >> Same question wearing different clothes. In both cases it's just >> >> >> > semantic games with an undefined term. In the question regarding the >> > tree, the phrase "make a sound" was never defined and so the issue >> > appears debatable. In your example, the word "effect" was never >> > defined, and so the question appears debatable. >> > >> > The question is debatable. Although only semantically, if you like. If >> you >> > define sound as "something audible" then it only occurs when someone >> hears >> > it, by definition. But if you define "sound" as something that has the >> > possibility of being audible, then there's sound even when nobody >> hears >> > it, again by definition. And this is the right way to define it, IMO, >> > because if not, you're left in the dark regarding the real nature of >> > things. The specific phenomena of sound manifests when somebody hears >> it, >> > but while nobody is hearing it, there's something there that, when >> someone >> > heards it, manifests itself as sound. >> > >> > But I was pointing to another direction: trying to show that the >> specific >> > form of things we perceive or phenomena that occurs in the world, are >> the >> > result of an interaction. >> > >> >> Obviously. That's the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum >> mechanics: The observer is part of the system, and the act of observing >> is an interaction. Without the presence of the observer, it's a >> different system. >> >> > In the same venue, gravity only makes sense as a result of the >> interaction >> > of two or more massive bodies. >> >> What does it mean for something to "make sense"? Without a precise >> definition of that phrase the sentence is meaningless. >> >> For that matter, you haven't said what *you* mean by "interaction" or >> "massive" or "body". Is a photon "massive"? Is a neutron star one >> body, or is it a whole bunch of bodies, one for each neutron? Does a >> ray of light which is bent by a massive star constitute an "interaction" >> of that star with another "massive body", or not? >> >> Everything is debatable when nothing is defined. >> >> >> > In a sense, gravity phenomenologically IS >> > the result of that interaction, that is, gravity is different when >> there's >> > an interaction, >> >> This sounds kind of meaningless, frankly. "Different" how? What do you >> mean by an "interaction"? >> >> More fun with undefined terms. >> >> > to when there's none, and that difference depends also on >> > the interacting bodies, in the same way as a diffraction pattern >> depends >> > on the medium, >> >> No it doesn't, as I already pointed out. >> >> >
