Category Archives: Email Debates

Debates over email or in my own forum

The Unreal Universe — Discussion with Gibran

Hi again,You raise a lot of interesting questions. Let me try to answer them one by one.

You’re saying that our observations of an object moving away from us would look identical in either an SR or Galilean context, and therefore this is not a good test for SR.

What I’m saying is slightly different. The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar-like round trip light travel time. It is then assumed that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects. Because the round trip light travel is used, the transformation works for approaching objects as well, but not for things moving in other directions. But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving (inertial) frames of reference regardless of direction.

We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means, what it means to talk about the properties of space. We cannot think of a space independent of our perception. Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine. They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it. And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space. I beg to differ. I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs. There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space. It may be nothing like space, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the underlying reality is like Galilean space-time. How would be perceive it, given that we perceive it using light (one-way travel of light, not two-way as SR assumes)? It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR. So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space-time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR. (It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two-way light travel, I may get SR-like transformation. I haven’t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star, for instance, by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it.)

This thesis doesn’t sit well with physicists, and indeed with most people. They mistakeperceptual effects to be something like optical illusions. My point is more like space itself is an illusion. If you look at the night sky, you know that the stars you see are not “real” in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them. This is simply because the information carrier, namely light, has a finite speed. If the star under observation is in motion, our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason. SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion. Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time, SR has to operate onspace-time continuum. Since SR is based on perceptual effects, it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it.

But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away? And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground? Doesn’t this support the ideas inherent in SR?

Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory. It is always a model based interpretation. I know that this is not a convincing argument for you, so let me give you an example. Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects. They measure the angular speed of the celestial object, and they have some estimate of its distance from us, so they can estimate the speed. If we didn’t have SR, there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality. Since we do have SR, one has to find anexplanation for this. The explanation is this: when an object approaches us at a shallow angle, it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed. Thus the “real” speed is subluminal while the “apparent” speed may be superluminal. This interpretation of the observation, in my view, breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer.

Now, there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects. The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large. Since the jets are assumed to be back-to-back, if one jet is approaching us (thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality), the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal, unless, of course, the underlying motion is superluminal. The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by thefactthat real motion cannot be superluminal. This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations.

In the case of moving clocks being slower, it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity. Besides, one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies. Otherwise, the age-old twin paradox would apply.

I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein’s theories, like the bending of light due to gravity, but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re-interpreted according to your theory? If this is so, it’s dam surprising! I mean, no offense to youyou’re obviously a very bright individual, and you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I’d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicistsfingers for 100 years.

These are gravity related questions and fall under GR. My “theory” doesn’t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all. I put theory in inverted quotes because, to me, it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between what we see and the underlying causes of our perception. The algebra involved is fairly simple by physics standards.

Supposing you’re right in that space and time are actually Galilean, and that the effects of SR are artifacts of our perception. How then are the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments explained? I’m sorry if you did explain it in your book, but it must have flown right over my head. Or are we leaving this as a mystery, an anomaly for future theorists to figure out?

I haven’t completely explained MMX, more or less leaving it as a mystery. I think the explanation hinges on how light is reflected off a moving mirror, which I pointed out in the book. Suppose the mirror is moving away from the light source at a speed of v in our frame of reference. Light strikes it at a speed of c-v. What is the speed of the reflected light? If the laws of reflection should hold (it’s not immediately obvious that they should), then the reflected light has to have a speed of c-v as well. This may explain why MMX gives null result. I haven’t worked out the whole thing though. I will, once I quit my day job and dedicate my life to full-time thinking. :-)

My idea is not a replacement theory for all of Einstein’s theories. It’s merely a reinterpretation of one part of SR. Since the rest of Einstein’s edifice is built on this coordinate transformation part, I’m sure there will be some reinterpretation of the rest of SR and GR also based on my idea. Again, this is a project for later. My reinterpretation is not an attempt to prove Einstein’s theories wrong; I merely want to point out that they apply to reality as we perceive it.

Overall, it was worth the $5 I payed. Thanks for the good read. Don’t take my questions as an assault on your proposalI’m honestly in the dark about these things and I absolutely crave light (he he). If you could kindly answer them in your spare time, I’d love to share more ideas with you. It’s good to find a fellow thinker to bounce cool ideas like this off of. I’ll PM you again once I’m fully done the book. Again, it was a very satisfying read.

Thanks! I’m glad that you like my ideas and my writing. I don’t mind criticism at all. Hope I have answered most of your questions. If not, or if you want to disagree with my answers, feel free to write back. Always a pleasure to chat about these things even if we don’t agree with each other.

Best regards,
– Manoj

What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

This post is a long email discussion I had with my friend Ranga. 주제는 사물의 현실의 비현실 성과이 개념을 물리학에 적용하는 방법이었습니다.,,en,다시 논쟁을 겪고,,en,나는 Ranga가 나보다 철학 문제에 더 정통하다고 생각한다고 느낍니다.,,en,나도,,en,나는 그가 나보다 더 잘 읽는다고 생각한다,,en,하지만 나는 그의 가정이,,en,그다지 몰랐기 때문에 그런 얘기를 해야겠다,,en,그의 의견을 편견하고 진정으로 새로운 것들에 눈이 멀었을 수 있습니다.,,en,나는 말해야 만했다,,en,그럼에도 불구하고,,en,토론 중에 나온 흥미로운 점이 일반적으로 흥미로울 수 있다고 생각합니다.,,en,가독성을 위해 토론을 편집하고 형식을 지정했습니다.,,en,이 블로그와 책에서 제가 이야기하는 내용에 대해 많은 밝은 사람들이 숙고 해 온 것은 사실입니다.,,en.

Going through the debate again, I feel that Ranga considers himself better-versed in the matters of philosophy than I am. I do too, I consider him better read than me. But I feel that his assumption (that I didn’t know so much that I should be talking about such things) may have biased his opinion and blinded him to some of the genuinely new things (in my opinion, of course) I had to say. Nonetheless, I think there are quite a few interesting points that came out during the debate that may be of general interest. I have edited and formatted the debate for readability.

It is true that many bright people have pondered over the things I talk about in this blog and in my book. 그리고 그들은 자신의 생각을 작품에 표현했습니다.,,en,아마 내 것보다 낫다,,en,항상 기존 글을 살펴 보는 것이 좋습니다.,,en,내 머리를 비워,,en,내 리뷰어 중 한 명이 David Humes를 추천하면서 제안했듯이,,en,이러한 광범위한 독서는 내재적 위험을 초래합니다,,en,글을 읽고 이해하는 데 걸리는 시간과 사고와 관련된 기회 비용은 그리 많지 않습니다.,,en,또한 당신이 읽은 모든 것이 당신 안에 동화되고 당신의 의견이이 뛰어난 사상가들에 의해 영향을 받는다는 사실이기도합니다.,,en,그게 좋은 일이지만,,en,원래 생각에 해로울지도 모른다고 봅니다,,en,극단으로,,en, probably better than I have in mine. Although it is always a good idea to go through the existing writings to “clear my head” (as one of my reviewers suggested while recommending David Humes), such wide reading creates an inherent risk. It is not so much the time it will take to read and understand the writings and the associated opportunity cost in thinking; it is also the fact that everything you read gets assimilated in you and your opinions become influenced by these brilliant thinkers. While that may be a good thing, I look at it as though it may actually be detrimental to original thought. Taken to the extreme, 그러한 맹목적 동화는 당신의 의견이 이러한 고전적 사고 학교의 역류가 될 수 있습니다.,,en,Hermann Hesse가 암시 하듯이,,en,싯다르타,,en,지혜는 가르 칠 수 없다,,en,내부에서 생성되어야합니다.,,en,Ranga의 말은 초록색,,en,두 번째로 인용 될 때 파란색,,en,광산은 흰색입니다,,en,두 번째로 인용 될 때 보라색,,en,월,,en,나는,,en,다른 정도로,,en,철학자와 과학자들이 경이적 및 물리적 현실 측면에서 구별하는 구별에 익숙합니다.,,en,Upanishads의 작품에서,,en,Advaitas / Dvaitas로,,en,Schopenhauer의 Noumenon / Phenomenon에,,en,특수 상대성 이론의 블록 우주,,en,그리고 최근 물리학 이론까지도,,en,칼루 자와 클라인,,en,우리가 인식하는 것이 반드시 무엇인지에 대한 통찰력,,en,오랜 세월 다양한 방식으로 존재,,en.

Besides, as Hermann Hesse implies in Siddhartha, wisdom cannot be taught. It has to be generated from within.

Ranga’s words are colored Green (or Blue when quoted for the second time).

Mine are in White (or Purple when quoted for the second time).

Mon, May 21, 2007 at 8:07 PM.

I’m, to different extents, familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realities – from the works of Upanishads, to the Advaitas/Dvaitas, to the Noumenon/Phenomenon of Schopenhauer, and the block Universe of Special Relativity, and even the recent theories in physics (Kaluza and Klein). The insight that what we perceive is not necessarily what “is”, existed in a variety of ways from a long time. However, 그러한 통찰력은 모든 과학에 쉽게 수용되고 통합되지 않았습니다.,,en,신경 과학과 사회 과학 분야에서 이것에 대한 엄청난 문헌이 있습니다.,,en,당신이 이것을 물리학에 도입하려고 시도한 것은 참으로 좋은 일입니다.,,en,이에 대한 이전 논의를 회상하여,,en,웹 사이트에서 책에 대한 소개를 읽고 논문의 기울기를 이해함으로써,,en,저널에서 찾을 수 없습니다,,en,수락 되었습니까?,,en,초강력 운동이있을 수 있음을 제안하고 GRB와 같은 알려진 현상을 기발하게 설명하기 위해,,en,실제 악기에서도,,en,대담하고 현장의 다른 사람들의주의가 필요합니다.,,en,항상 질문을해야합니다.,,en,지각,,en,경계,,en,이 경우에는 물론 빛의 속도,,en,그것은 매우 부정확하고 피상적입니다,,en. There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences. So, it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physics – by recollecting our previous discussion on this, by reading through your introduction to the book in the website and understanding the tilt of your paper (could not find it in the journal – has it been accepted?). To suggest that there could be superluminal motion and to explain known phenomena such as GRBs through a quirk (?) in our perception (even in the physical instruments) is bold and needs careful attention by others in the field. One should always ask questions to cross “perceived” boundaries – in this case of course the speed of light.

However, it is quite inaccurate and superficial (in my opinion) 일부가 있다고 생각,,en,너머의 현실,,en,현실,,en,우리는 만난다,,en,우리 안에는 다른 개인에 대한 여러 현실이 있다는 것을 아는 것이 중요하지만,,en,그리고 심지어 다른 유기체,,en,감각과 지성에 따라,,en,인식이 없을 때 결국 현실이 무엇인지 묻는 것도 똑같이 중요합니다.,,en,어떤 방법으로도 액세스 할 수없는 경우,,en,어쨌든 뭐야,,en,그런 게 전혀 없나요,,en,행성 이동의 절대 현실,,en,유기체가없는 별과 은하,,en,지각 할 사람이 없는데도 그렇게 지각하는 사람,,en,그들은 어떤 형태를 취합니까,,en,형태가 있습니까,,en,철학 적용,,en,더 깊고 대담한 질문을 읽었습니다.,,en,과학에,,en,나는 그 질문에 답하려는 진지한 시도로 읽었습니다.,,en,당신은 당신의 방법에서 중간이 될 수 없습니다,,en “absolute” reality beyond the “reality” we encounter. While it is important to know that there are multiple realities for different individuals in us, and even different organisms, depending on senses and intellect, it is equally important to ask what reality is after all when there is no perception. If it cannot be accessed by any means, what is it anyway? Is there such a thing at all? Is Absolute Reality in the movement of planets, stars and galaxies without organisms in them? Who perceives them as such when there is nobody to perceive? What form do they take? Is there form? In applying philosophy (which I read just as deeper and bolder questions) to science (which I read as a serious attempt to answer those questions), you cannot be half-way in your methods, 일부 질문이 지금은 너무 철학적이거나 너무 신학 적이라는 상상의 경계를 그리기,,en,당신의 책,,en,최소한 요약,,en,집에 중요한 포인트를 가져다주는 것 같습니다,,en,적어도이 방향으로 생각하지 않은 사람들에게,,en,우리가 인식하는 현실은 매체 / 모드에 달려 있습니다.,,en,어떤 경우에는 빛,,en,그리고 악기,,en,감각 기관과 뇌,,en,우리는 지각을 위해 사용합니다,,en,이러한 지각 오류를 제거 할 때 절대 현실이 있다는 피상적 인 생각을 남기는 것 같습니다.,,en,지각 적 오류입니까?,,en,지각 도구 나 인식 자체가 현실 자체의 일부가 아닙니다.,,en,우리의 모든 인식의 합을 넘어서는 다른 현실이 있다는 것을 제안하는 것은 우리가 인식하는 것이 유일한 현실이라는 것을 제안하는 것과 철학적으로 똑같이 잘못된 것입니다.,,en,모두 같은,,en.

While your book (the summary at least) seems to bring home an important point (at least to those who have not thought in this direction) that the reality we perceive is dependent on the medium/mode (light in some cases) and the instrument (sense organ and brain) we use for perceiving, it seems to leave behind a superficial idea that there is Absolute Reality when you remove these perceptual errors. Are they perceptual errors – aren’t perceptual instruments and perceptions themselves part of reality itself? To suggest that there is some other reality beyond the sum of all our perceptions is philosophically equally erroneous as suggesting that what we perceive is the only reality.

All the same, 현실이나 그것의 부족에 대한 질문은 물리 과학에 잘 반영되지 않았으며,이 점에서 최선을 다하기를 바랍니다.,,en,건배,,en,클래스,,ga.

Cheers
Ranga