The general premise of Wikipedia is the same as that of utilitarian thinker John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Mill believed that "...the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions." (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/) and that freedom of expression would, in his opinion, necessarily lead to truth, thus contradicting the already well established Christian edict that it is truth obtained by humble access through continuance in righteousness (as opposed to sin) that leads to freedom. By putting the cart before the horse in this way, Mill successfully altered western thinking, and the same inverted logic was subsequently used in Hitler's concentration camps ("Work makes you Free").
The problem with both Mill's approach, and that of Wikipedia, is that there is no accountability for getting it wrong.
If Wikipedia was however a legal entity producing a product for sale, it would be a different matter. There would be not only legal consequences for publishing information that was knowingly false and misleading in a material particular, but financial consequences for bringing itself into public ridicule and disrepute.
Wikipedia is yet again asking for public donations to continue its extremely low quality of product involving gross misinformation and abusive moderation. I have never felt that Wikipedia could be more reliable than old and discredited academic texts and maintaining only what was known in the past. What I never expected was that it could be such an potent propaganda device for gangs of ultra conservatives determined to censor anything that smacked of meritorious independent thinking.
It is this hypocrisy in its censorial moderating of independent thinkers that gives Wikipedia the reputation it has today, of being the worlds greatest source of 'fake facts'. Wikipedia, in its articles and in general, by virtue of its male dominated militarised moderation, cannot deal with criticism or feedback. Now it has the gall to ask for your money in order to continue abusing you with its censorial moderation rules.
Contributing to Wikipedia is to risk casting your pearls before swine. Freedom of expression is the last thing Wikipedia is actually good for unless its already been expressed somewhere else by someone else, and preferably, at least a few decades ago.
Thursday, 19 December 2019
Friday, 26 August 2016
Best Video of the Month
Veritasium just won my "Physics of Time - Best Video of the Month Award" for this video's objective promotion of truth in science above all other interests. WELL DONE VERITASIUM - you truly live up to your name !!!
Sunday, 8 May 2016
Friday, 5 February 2016
Poincaré,complex space-time vs Minkowski space-time vs (Anderson) objective time
According to Einstein, we are moving through time at the speed of light.
Time is motion. But actually, that's not quite right. Time and motion
have different dimensions (units) so fail any equality on that basis
alone. However, one can derive from Einstein's mass energy equivalence M
= E / C^2 that:
1 second = 3x10^8 metres * sqroot (mass / energy)
Time (the left hand side above) therefore is relative (nothing new there) and depends on a constant of distance (ie. space), as well as the mass and energy of ..... well what exactly?
Lets think again about the Minkowski Space Time model. The above equality suggests that time cannot be simply attached to space as a dimension if it has a co-dependency on mass and energy. At least, to do so introduces an ugly complexity involving mismatched 4-vectors.
Time must be a property of mass and energy that is expressed in a constant unit of space. We can be certain that time cannot be expressed as a property of empty space alone, as the Minkowski model suggests. Time requires something to be in it - mass, and its energy - motion. Without mass, energy and space, time cannot exist. Thus the Minkowski model (simplified from the complex space-time model originally proposed by Henri Poincaré) is an imperfect model for understanding time.
If, as Einstein established, mass is itself a property of energy, then time is also fundamentally a property of energy. But this definition is circular because our common units for energy (joules, electron volts (etc)) have time dependencies. That is why we have trouble understanding time.
But what are the mass and energy and spacial constant referring to anyhow ? We could suppose that a time of 1 second of a body in S1 space (moving directly away from an observer) is defined by the mass and energy of the body and a universal constant of space. Does this help ? This is simply analogous to the movement at constant velocity of two reference frames in Special Relativity.
Defining time in S2 space by squaring both sides may clarify:
1 second^2 = 3x10^8 metres^2 * (mass / energy)
What this says is that time of an observed accelerating body is constant over an S2 space but varies with its mass and energy. An analogy is gravity on the surface of a planet - ie. general relativity.
It is prudent to remember here that Einstein's mass - energy equivalence was relativistic, not absolute. Time based on mass - energy equivalence must also be relative.
Yet it is tempting to suppose time can be defined absolutely. Indeed, why shouldn't this be so? Time is after all a metaphysical construct invented by primitive man to describe or understand motion. It doesn't actually exist other than in our minds. We've inherited this erroneous thinking from even before it was believed the earth was flat.
But Einstein's hitherto unchallenged yet mathematically incorrect claim that "we are moving through time at the speed of light" comes tantalisingly close to the essence of time. Time is motion, yes, but in a qualified sense only. Einstein himself shows us in indisputable clarity that time is a mere artifact of mass, energy and space. Wherever these three elements are combined, time exists. Wherever one is missing time does not exist.
So how do we connect with all this?
Time, it seems, is a relative energy vector in Euclidean space whose positive direction is toward the centre of mass of an observed body. If we are in free fall (zero gravity), then we observe our own time vector to be pointing to our centre of mass and this enables us with potential movement in 3D space up to the speed of light. If we are on the surface of a planet then the centre of mass is the centre of the planet holding us "up" and the associated time potential between our centre of mass and the centre of mass of the planet induces an acceleration we know as gravity. All this is derivable from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. There is nothing new here other than my innovative interpretation. However, this suggests that Gravitons - if they exist - would need to interact with this time energy vector.
If I may paraphrase from "The Matrix": Then you'll see, that it is not us that moves through time, it is only time that moves through us."
1 second = 3x10^8 metres * sqroot (mass / energy)
Time (the left hand side above) therefore is relative (nothing new there) and depends on a constant of distance (ie. space), as well as the mass and energy of ..... well what exactly?
Lets think again about the Minkowski Space Time model. The above equality suggests that time cannot be simply attached to space as a dimension if it has a co-dependency on mass and energy. At least, to do so introduces an ugly complexity involving mismatched 4-vectors.
Time must be a property of mass and energy that is expressed in a constant unit of space. We can be certain that time cannot be expressed as a property of empty space alone, as the Minkowski model suggests. Time requires something to be in it - mass, and its energy - motion. Without mass, energy and space, time cannot exist. Thus the Minkowski model (simplified from the complex space-time model originally proposed by Henri Poincaré) is an imperfect model for understanding time.
If, as Einstein established, mass is itself a property of energy, then time is also fundamentally a property of energy. But this definition is circular because our common units for energy (joules, electron volts (etc)) have time dependencies. That is why we have trouble understanding time.
But what are the mass and energy and spacial constant referring to anyhow ? We could suppose that a time of 1 second of a body in S1 space (moving directly away from an observer) is defined by the mass and energy of the body and a universal constant of space. Does this help ? This is simply analogous to the movement at constant velocity of two reference frames in Special Relativity.
Defining time in S2 space by squaring both sides may clarify:
1 second^2 = 3x10^8 metres^2 * (mass / energy)
What this says is that time of an observed accelerating body is constant over an S2 space but varies with its mass and energy. An analogy is gravity on the surface of a planet - ie. general relativity.
It is prudent to remember here that Einstein's mass - energy equivalence was relativistic, not absolute. Time based on mass - energy equivalence must also be relative.
Yet it is tempting to suppose time can be defined absolutely. Indeed, why shouldn't this be so? Time is after all a metaphysical construct invented by primitive man to describe or understand motion. It doesn't actually exist other than in our minds. We've inherited this erroneous thinking from even before it was believed the earth was flat.
But Einstein's hitherto unchallenged yet mathematically incorrect claim that "we are moving through time at the speed of light" comes tantalisingly close to the essence of time. Time is motion, yes, but in a qualified sense only. Einstein himself shows us in indisputable clarity that time is a mere artifact of mass, energy and space. Wherever these three elements are combined, time exists. Wherever one is missing time does not exist.
So how do we connect with all this?
Time, it seems, is a relative energy vector in Euclidean space whose positive direction is toward the centre of mass of an observed body. If we are in free fall (zero gravity), then we observe our own time vector to be pointing to our centre of mass and this enables us with potential movement in 3D space up to the speed of light. If we are on the surface of a planet then the centre of mass is the centre of the planet holding us "up" and the associated time potential between our centre of mass and the centre of mass of the planet induces an acceleration we know as gravity. All this is derivable from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity. There is nothing new here other than my innovative interpretation. However, this suggests that Gravitons - if they exist - would need to interact with this time energy vector.If I may paraphrase from "The Matrix": Then you'll see, that it is not us that moves through time, it is only time that moves through us."
ON TIME AND LIGHT - Part 2A
I'll be posting my continuation of a series explaining how I believe Einstein and Bohr might be able to settle their 100 year long differences of opinion by rethinking Time.However, I have edited Part 1, and a re-read might be in order while you're waiting.
I'll be making the following assertions to develop my model of Time, and I'm confident it will be so obvious that you'll be kicking yourself wondering "why I didn't think of that" when you see what I've cooked up.
1. The universe has potentially an unlimited number of spacial dimensions.
2. Our physical universe is defined by properties of the matter from which we ourselves, and the things around us, are composed.
3. We are made of matter that only occupies three spacial dimensions. It is trivial to show that matter in our reality does not have more than three spacial dimensions but must have at least three spacial dimensions. For example, with our bi-focal vision a 4D asymmetrical object would appear to change size and shape when rotated. There is no massive object that does this.
4. A "particle" that does not have (rest) mass (eg Boson) does not exist in, nor occupy, physical space. Such particles are "space agnostic" and are detectable only when captured into, or released from, a particle that does have mass.
5. Massless particles only ever propagate through space as waves, and only ever accumulate in massive particles as particles.
6. At least one higher spacial dimension exists constituting a rail upon which the known three dimensional massive universe is expanding as if riding the surface of an expanding 4D bubble. The centre of this 4+ dimensional bubble is the origin of the big bang.
And on that bombshell... I'll let you think about how all this works while I put together the rest of part 2.
ON TIME AND LIGHT - Part 1
This series outlines how Einstein (Relativity) and Bohr (QM) are both right, except how Einstein might have arrived at the same conclusion if not for the flawed concept of Minkowski Space-Time. In doing so, I hope to show that QM is deterministic rather that probabilistic, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Entropy) is not violated by quantum effects using a couple of fairly simple inventions or conjectures.
In order to understand what is going on at the quantum level, I need to create a temporary mathematical construct that explains how we can be racing through Minkowski space-time at the speed of light without hitting anything, or otherwise intersecting with things coming the other way (ie. things going "backwards" in time).
I first define the void of infinite space as "pure space" (or just "void") and as being completely empty and infinite in time and space, where "infinite" means in the geometric sense of endless rather than the pure mathematical sense of "undefined". Not even light has reached the void, and time does not exist. It is geometrically dimensionless - an infinite nonexistence. When the finite universe "intrudes" into the void, the void is subsumed in an interesting way and I will elaborate on this shortly.
I next consider how to model the infinite void mathematically rather than as a physical entity. The void is completely free of concepts of Euclidean space, time, mass or energy. It can be multi dimensional or three dimensional or both at once or neither. It is essentially a blank canvas. So the first useful construct is to assert, for my purposes, that the void is infinitely expandable and infinitely collapsible at any point. I can also safely assert in my mathematical construct that the void expands and collapses effortlessly - it requires no energy, only a catalyst such as an intrusion like light.
Now I have a model of a meta-reality I call the void (or pure space), a template that I can apply to consider what might be going on in the finite space of our physical universe.
When light, or anything having momentum, intrudes into the void, I assert in this model that the void resists the intrusion by "collapsing into it" in a classical physics equal and opposite reaction. Note that it doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, its just an invention to act as a cognitive placeholder for "travelling through time at the speed of light". The reaction in this case is that the void can only resist by expanding or contracting, and in the special case of light (with zero rest mass), the void collapses (accelerates instantaneously) to oppose the direction of light (as time does not exist at this particular event in space) and the aggregate of the light energy and spacial collapse of the void into it commences the "tick" of time. This aggregate final light/void velocity is what we call the speed of light. If it were not for this, light would travel instantaneously everywhere. Time would never exist in such a (latter) scenario, in as much as everything would happen all at the same instant of the big bang (assuming the veracity of that theory) and life could never form. Of course this not the case.
Once "time" has been triggered by the above (imaginary) process the presence of light energy and space collapsing into it remain in balance. Finite space can be defined as the void resisting light, or the presence of "time". However "time" is a metaphor for space collapsing at the speed of light into the intrusion of light. Spacial collapse gives rise to the possibility of "motion", because the imploding void resists everything from happing instantaneously. The void continues to exist in finite space but it is endlessly collapsing at what we know as the "speed of light" into the light, and which "speed" is alternatively also the "rate of time". The astute mind might now easily see how the invention of the collapsing void can indeed allow us to join the apparently constant speed of light and the apparently variable rate of time, when in fact we could also say that the rate of time remains constant, but because it is not as intuitive to measure variations in the rate of time, we say that the speed of light is constant instead. The concepts are however interchangeable, and measure the same thing.
To understand time, it must be valid to say that if the rate of time is constant then the speed of light can vary, but note that this approach does not contradict special or general relativity in any way. Far otherwise, for the intention is to create a model of time that fully agrees with both macro and quantum scale effects.
In Part 2 of this series I will explain how gravity arises from this model.
I first define the void of infinite space as "pure space" (or just "void") and as being completely empty and infinite in time and space, where "infinite" means in the geometric sense of endless rather than the pure mathematical sense of "undefined". Not even light has reached the void, and time does not exist. It is geometrically dimensionless - an infinite nonexistence. When the finite universe "intrudes" into the void, the void is subsumed in an interesting way and I will elaborate on this shortly.
I next consider how to model the infinite void mathematically rather than as a physical entity. The void is completely free of concepts of Euclidean space, time, mass or energy. It can be multi dimensional or three dimensional or both at once or neither. It is essentially a blank canvas. So the first useful construct is to assert, for my purposes, that the void is infinitely expandable and infinitely collapsible at any point. I can also safely assert in my mathematical construct that the void expands and collapses effortlessly - it requires no energy, only a catalyst such as an intrusion like light.
Now I have a model of a meta-reality I call the void (or pure space), a template that I can apply to consider what might be going on in the finite space of our physical universe.
When light, or anything having momentum, intrudes into the void, I assert in this model that the void resists the intrusion by "collapsing into it" in a classical physics equal and opposite reaction. Note that it doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, its just an invention to act as a cognitive placeholder for "travelling through time at the speed of light". The reaction in this case is that the void can only resist by expanding or contracting, and in the special case of light (with zero rest mass), the void collapses (accelerates instantaneously) to oppose the direction of light (as time does not exist at this particular event in space) and the aggregate of the light energy and spacial collapse of the void into it commences the "tick" of time. This aggregate final light/void velocity is what we call the speed of light. If it were not for this, light would travel instantaneously everywhere. Time would never exist in such a (latter) scenario, in as much as everything would happen all at the same instant of the big bang (assuming the veracity of that theory) and life could never form. Of course this not the case.
Once "time" has been triggered by the above (imaginary) process the presence of light energy and space collapsing into it remain in balance. Finite space can be defined as the void resisting light, or the presence of "time". However "time" is a metaphor for space collapsing at the speed of light into the intrusion of light. Spacial collapse gives rise to the possibility of "motion", because the imploding void resists everything from happing instantaneously. The void continues to exist in finite space but it is endlessly collapsing at what we know as the "speed of light" into the light, and which "speed" is alternatively also the "rate of time". The astute mind might now easily see how the invention of the collapsing void can indeed allow us to join the apparently constant speed of light and the apparently variable rate of time, when in fact we could also say that the rate of time remains constant, but because it is not as intuitive to measure variations in the rate of time, we say that the speed of light is constant instead. The concepts are however interchangeable, and measure the same thing.
To understand time, it must be valid to say that if the rate of time is constant then the speed of light can vary, but note that this approach does not contradict special or general relativity in any way. Far otherwise, for the intention is to create a model of time that fully agrees with both macro and quantum scale effects.
In Part 2 of this series I will explain how gravity arises from this model.
Time as a dimension
As noted earlier, Einstein concluded gravity to be a potential field
created by time disparities (differentials or potentials) across space.
gravity, is a curve in time induced by the momentum and energy inherent
in mass. Since that post on my Facebook page 2 weeks ago, I've been
wondering about how Einstein envisaged that we could be moving through
space-time at lightspeed, and not be aware of it.
Time as a fourth spacial dimension is a very strange union, so much so that I avoid this categorisation in favour of the vector and tensor metrics that actually appear in Einstein's equations. I am yet to see Time expressed as truly dimensional metric (eg what is dt/ds?) in EFE's or even relativity. In fact, Einstein borrowed the idea of space-time from one of his professors - Minkowski - and attributed it to him, although the idea was first mooted in 1905 by Henri Poincare as a complex dimension and Minkowski simply evolved it into affine space. Well that's my take on it anyhow. We should really be talking about Poincare Space-Time, and frankly I think its a big mistake to take Poincare Space-Time and think of ourselves racing through a complex spacial dimension. As I have noted before, mathematically, Time as a dimension invites the idea that time can go backwards, and Im sorry folks but that breaks a fundamental law of physics - the law of entropy or increasing chaos. That word "increasing" is so basic to physics that even Einstein, when confronted with the implications this had in the quantum world, declared that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Today I will be putting down why I think Einstein was right, and how quantum theory can be possibly explained within a relatively simple model involving a Euclidean space of which Time is a simple vector property. I would set it out in this post but I do not have enough space to write it here..... :-)
(Lets hope this is not, like Fermat, the last thing I ever do!!!!)
Time as a fourth spacial dimension is a very strange union, so much so that I avoid this categorisation in favour of the vector and tensor metrics that actually appear in Einstein's equations. I am yet to see Time expressed as truly dimensional metric (eg what is dt/ds?) in EFE's or even relativity. In fact, Einstein borrowed the idea of space-time from one of his professors - Minkowski - and attributed it to him, although the idea was first mooted in 1905 by Henri Poincare as a complex dimension and Minkowski simply evolved it into affine space. Well that's my take on it anyhow. We should really be talking about Poincare Space-Time, and frankly I think its a big mistake to take Poincare Space-Time and think of ourselves racing through a complex spacial dimension. As I have noted before, mathematically, Time as a dimension invites the idea that time can go backwards, and Im sorry folks but that breaks a fundamental law of physics - the law of entropy or increasing chaos. That word "increasing" is so basic to physics that even Einstein, when confronted with the implications this had in the quantum world, declared that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Today I will be putting down why I think Einstein was right, and how quantum theory can be possibly explained within a relatively simple model involving a Euclidean space of which Time is a simple vector property. I would set it out in this post but I do not have enough space to write it here..... :-)
(Lets hope this is not, like Fermat, the last thing I ever do!!!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)