Sansinukob – Sukat at Edad

-Post ko ang tanong na ito na Iniistorbo ako kapag nabasa ko na nakakita sila ng isang kalawakan ng mga bandang 13 bilyon na light years ang layo. Aking-unawa sa mga pahayag na: Sa distansya ng 13 bilyon light years, nagkaroon ng kalawakan 13 bilyong taon ang nakalipas, upang maaari naming makita ang liwanag mula sa ito ngayon. Hindi na nangangahulugan na ang uniberso ay hindi bababa sa 26 bilyong taon? Dapat itong kinunan ng kalawakan tungkol sa 13 bilyong taon upang maabot kung saan lumalabas na ito ay, at ang liwanag mula dito ay dapat gumawa ng isa pang 13 bilyong taon upang maabot sa amin.

Sa pagsagot sa aking katanungan, Martin at Swansont (na ipinapalagay ko ay akademikong phycisists) ituro ang aking mga maling at mahalagang hilingin sa akin na matuto nang higit pa. Lahat ay dapat sumagot sa kapag ako assimilated, ito ay lilitaw! 🙂

Debate na ito ay na-publish bilang isang pasimula sa aking post sa Big Bang teorya, pagdating up sa isang araw o dalawa.

Mowgli 03-26-2007 10:14 PM

Sansinukob – Sukat at Edad
I was reading a post in http://www.space.com/ stating that they found a galaxy at about 13 bilyon na light years ang layo. Ako ay sinusubukan upang malaman kung anong na pahayag paraan. Akin, nangangahulugan ito na 13 bilyong taon ang nakalipas, ang kalawakan na ito ay kung saan namin makita ito ngayon. Ay hindi na kung ano 13b .ly ang layo ng paraan? Kung gayon, Hindi na nangangahulugan na ang uniberso ay dapat na hindi bababa sa 26 bilyong taon? Ibig kong sabihin, ang buong uniberso na nagsimula sa isang isahan point; kung paano ang kalawakan na ito ay kung saan ito ay 13 bilyong taon ang nakalipas maliban kung ito ay may hindi bababa sa 13 bilyong taon upang makarating doon? (Ang hindi pagpansin sa mga phase ng implasyon para sa ilang sandali…) Narinig ko ang mga tao na ipaliwanag ang puwang nito ay pagpapalawak. Ano ang ginagawa ng ano ba masama na? Ay hindi ito lamang ang may interes paraan ng pagsabi na ang bilis ng liwanag ay mas maliit ng ilang oras ang nakalipas?
swansont 03-27-2007 09:10 AM

Sumipi:

Orihinal na-post sa pamamagitan ng Mowgli
(Mag-post ng 329204)
Ibig kong sabihin, ang buong uniberso na nagsimula sa isang isahan point; kung paano ang kalawakan na ito ay kung saan ito ay 13 bilyong taon ang nakalipas maliban kung ito ay may hindi bababa sa 13 bilyong taon upang makarating doon? (Ang hindi pagpansin sa mga phase ng implasyon para sa ilang sandali…)

Ang hindi pagpansin sa lahat ng mga natitirang, kung paano ang magiging ibig sabihin na ito ang uniberso ay 26 bilyong taon?

Sumipi:

Orihinal na-post sa pamamagitan ng Mowgli
(Mag-post ng 329204)
Narinig ko ang mga tao na ipaliwanag ang puwang nito ay pagpapalawak. Ano ang ginagawa ng ano ba masama na? Ay hindi ito lamang ang may interes paraan ng pagsabi na ang bilis ng liwanag ay mas maliit ng ilang oras ang nakalipas?

Ang bilis ng liwanag ay taglay na bahagi ng atomic istraktura, sa masarap na istraktura pare-pareho (alpha). Kung c ay ang pagbabago, pagkatapos ay ang mga pattern ng atomic Spectra ay magkakaroon upang baguhin. May ay hindi pa nakumpirma ang anumang data na nagpapakita na ang alpha ay nagbago (ay nagkaroon ng paminsan-minsang mga papel na nagke-claim ito, ngunit kailangan mo ng isang tao upang ulitin ang mga sukat), at ang iba pa ay pare-pareho ang lahat na walang pagbabago.

Martin 03-27-2007 11:25 AM

Upang kumpirmahin o mapalakas ang kung ano ang sinabi swansont, may mga haka-haka at ang ilan palawit o hindi karaniwang cosmologies na kasangkot c pagbabago sa paglipas ng panahon (o alpha pagbabago sa paglipas ng panahon), ngunit ang pagbabago ng constants bagay lamang ay makakakuha ng higit pa at higit pa pinasiyahan out.I've ay nanonood para sa higit sa 5 taon at ang mas maraming mga tao ang hitsura at pag-aralan ang katibayan malabong tila na mayroong anumang pagbabago. Mamuno nila ito ang higit pa at mas tumpak na gamit ang kanilang data.So ito ay marahil pinakamahusay na huwag pansinin ang “-iiba-iba ang bilis ng liwanag” cosmologies hanggang sa isa ay lubusan pamilyar sa standard mainstream kosmolohiya.Mayroon kang maling Mowgli

  • Pangkalahatang kapamanggitan (ang 1915 teorya) trumps Espesyal na rel (1905)
  • Hindi sila tunay na magkasalungatan kung naiintindihan mo ang mga ito nang tama, dahil SR ay may lamang isang napaka-limitadong lokal na applicability, tulad ng sa sasakyang dumaraan sa pamamagitan ng:-)
  • Hangga't .gr at SR ay tila sumalungat, Naniniwala .gr. Ito ay ang mas malawak teorya.
  • .gr Walang limitasyon sa bilis sa rate na maaaring taasan ang napaka mahusay na mga distansya. ang tanging limitasyon ng bilis ay nasa LOKAL mga bagay-bagay (hindi ka maaaring abutin ang mga at pumasa isang poton)
  • Kaya namin at HUWAG obserbahan bagay na receding mula sa amin na mas mabilis kaysa c. (Ito ay malayo, SR ay hindi nalalapat.)
  • Ito ay ipinaliwanag sa isang artikulo Sci Am tingin ko noong nakaraang taon
  • Google ang pangalan ng may-akda Charles Lineweaver at Tamara Davis.
  • Alam namin ang tungkol sa maraming bagay-bagay na ay kasalukuyang higit sa 14 bilyon .ly layo.
  • Kailangan mong matuto nang ilang kosmolohiya kaya sanay ka malito sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ito.
  • Gayundin isang “katangian” ay hindi nangangahulugan ng isang solong punto. iyon ay isang sikat na pagkakamali dahil ang mga salita ng tunog ang parehong.
  • Ang isang katangian ay maaaring mangyari sa buong rehiyon, kahit na isang walang-katapusang rehiyon.

Gayundin ang “big bang” modelo ay hindi mukhang isang pagsabog ng matter whizzing ang layo mula sa ilang mga punto. Hindi ito dapat naisip na tulad ng. Ang pinakamahusay na artikulo na nagpapaliwanag karaniwang pagkakamali mga tao ay may ito ay Lineweaver at Davis bagay sa Sci Am. Sa tingin ko Jan o Pebrero 2005 ngunit maaari kong maging off sa isang taon. Google ito. Kunin ito mula sa iyong lokal na aklatan o mahanap ito online. Pinakamahusay na payo maaari kong bigyan.

Mowgli 03-28-2007 01:30 AM

Upang swansont kung bakit naisip ko 13 ipinahiwatig b .ly ng edad na 26 b taon:Kapag sinabi mo na mayroong isang kalawakan sa 13 b .ly layo, Nauunawaan ko ito sa nangangahulugan na 13 bilyong taon na ang nakalipas ang aking oras, ang kalawakan ay sa punto kung saan nakikita ko ito ngayon (na kung saan ay 13 b .ly ang layo mula sa akin). Alam na nagsimula ang lahat mula sa parehong punto, ito ay dapat na kinuha sa kalawakan ng hindi bababa sa 13 b taon upang makakuha ng kung saan ito ay 13 b taon na ang nakalipas. Kaya 13+13. Ako ba na dapat ako wrong.To Martin: Kayo ay tama, Kailangan kong malaman ang tila higit pa tungkol sa kosmolohiya. Ngunit ang dalawang bagay na iyong nabanggit sorpresahin sa akin — paano ko namin obserbahan ang mga bagay-bagay na receding mula sa bilang FTL? Ibig kong sabihin, hindi ang relativistic shift formula Doppler bigyan haka-haka 1 z? At ang mga bagay na lampas sa 14 b .ly layo – ang mga ito ay “sa labas” uniberso?Ako ay tiyak na hanapin at basahin ang mga may-akda nabanggit mo. Salamat.
swansont 03-28-2007 03:13 AM

Sumipi:

Orihinal na-post sa pamamagitan ng Mowgli
(Mag-post ng 329393)
Upang swansont kung bakit naisip ko 13 ipinahiwatig b .ly ng edad na 26 b taon:Kapag sinabi mo na mayroong isang kalawakan sa 13 b .ly layo, Nauunawaan ko ito sa nangangahulugan na 13 bilyong taon na ang nakalipas ang aking oras, ang kalawakan ay sa punto kung saan nakikita ko ito ngayon (na kung saan ay 13 b .ly ang layo mula sa akin). Alam na nagsimula ang lahat mula sa parehong punto, ito ay dapat na kinuha sa kalawakan ng hindi bababa sa 13 b taon upang makakuha ng kung saan ito ay 13 b taon na ang nakalipas. Kaya 13+13. Ako ba na dapat kong mali.

Iyon ay depende sa kung paano mo gawin ang iyong mga pag-calibrate. Naghahanap lamang sa isang shift Doppler at binabalewala ang lahat ng iba pang mga kadahilanan, kung alam mo na bilis iniuugnay sa distansya, kang makakuha ng isang tiyak na redshift at gusto mo marahil i-calibrate na kahulugan 13b .ly kung iyon ay ang aktwal na distansya. Liwanag na magiging 13b taong gulang.

Ngunit bilang Martin ay itinuturo out, puwang ay pagpapalawak; ang kosmolohiko redshift ay naiiba mula sa shift Doppler. Dahil sa mga pumapagitang mga puwang ay pinalawak na, AFAIK ang liwanag na nakakakuha sa amin mula sa isang kalawakan 13b .ly ang layo ay hindi bilang lumang, dahil ito ay mas malapit na ang ilaw ay napalabas. Gusto ko isipin na ang lahat ng ito ay isinasaalang-alang sa mga sukat, kaya na kapag ang isang distansya ay ibinibigay sa kalawakan, ito ay ang aktwal na distansya.

Martin 03-28-2007 08:54 AM

Sumipi:

Orihinal na-post sa pamamagitan ng Mowgli
(Mag-post ng 329393)
Ako ay tiyak na hanapin at basahin ang mga may-akda nabanggit mo.

May post na ito 5 o 6 mga link sa mga artikulo na Sci Am sa pamamagitan ng Lineweaver at Davis

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showt…965#post142965

Ito ay post #65 sa Astronomiya nagli-link ng mga sticky thread

Ito ay lumiliko out ang artikulo ay sa Marso 2005 pagpapalabas.

Sa tingin ko ito ay medyo madaling basahin—mahusay na nakasulat na. Kaya dapat itong makatulong.

Kapag nabasa mo na ang artikulong Sci Am, hilingin sa higit pang mga tanong—ang iyong mga katanungan ay maaaring maging masaya upang subukan at sagot:-)

Twin PARADOHA – Kumuha 2

Ang Twin PARADOHA ay karaniwang ipinaliwanag ang layo sa pamamagitan ng arguing na ang paglalakbay twin nararamdaman ang galaw dahil sa kanyang acceleration / pagbabawas ng bilis, at samakatuwid ay mas mabagal edad.

Ngunit ano ang mangyayari kung ang parehong pabilisin symmetrically ang twins? Iyon ay, simulan nila mula sa natitira mula sa isang puwang point na may-synchronize orasan, at bumalik sa parehong puwang point nagpapahinga sa pamamagitan ng accelerating ang layo mula sa bawat isa sa ilang panahon at decelerating sa paraan likod. Sa pamamagitan ng mahusay na proporsyon ng problema, parang na kapag ang dalawang orasan ay magkakasama sa dulo ng paglalakbay, sa parehong punto, at nagpapahinga na may paggalang sa isa't isa, mayroon sila upang sumang-ayon.

Pagkatapos muli, sa panahon ng buong paglalakbay, bawat orasan ay nasa paggalaw (pinabilis o hindi) may paggalang sa iba pang isa. Sa Slovakia, bawat orasan na nasa paggalaw na may paggalang sa orasan isang tagamasid ay dapat mas mabagal na pagtakbo. O, orasan ang tagamasid ay palaging ang pinakamabilis na. Kaya, para sa bawat twin, ang iba pang mga orasan ay dapat na tumatakbo mas mabagal. Gayunpaman, kapag dumating sila pabalik-sama sa dulo ng paglalakbay, mayroon sila upang sumang-ayon. Maaari itong mangyari lamang kung nakikita ng bawat twin orasan ng isa tumatakbo nang mas mabilis sa isang punto sa panahon ng paglalakbay. Ano ang SR sabihin ang mangyayari sa ganitong haka-haka na paglalakbay?

(Tandaan na ang pagpapabilis ng bawat twin maaaring gawing pare-pareho. Magkaroon ng mga twins-krus ang isa't isa sa isang mataas na bilis ng isang pare-pareho ang mga linear na pagbabawas ng bilis. Sila ay mag-krus muli ang isa't isa sa parehong bilis matapos ang ilang sandali. Sa panahon ng crossings, kanilang orasan maaaring maihambing.)

Unreal Time

Farsight wrote:Time is a velocity-dependent subjective measure of event succession rather than something fundamental – the events mark the time, the time doesn’t mark the events. This means the stuff out there is space rather than space-time, and is an “aether” veiled by subjective time.

I like your definition of time. It is close to my own view that time is “unreal.” It is possible to treat space as real and space-time as something different, as you do. This calls for some careful thought. I will outline my thinking in this post and illustrate it with an example, if my friends don’t pull me out for lunch before I can finish. :)

The first question we need to ask ourselves is why space and time seem coupled? The answer is actually too simple to spot, and it is in your definition of time. Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain’s ability to sense motion. There is an even deeper connection, which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes, but we will get to it later.

Let’s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed. Iyon ay, if star explodes at a million light years from us, we can sense it immediately. We will see it only after a million years, but we sense it instantly. Alam ko, it is a violation of SR, cannot happen and all that, but stay with me for a second. Ngayon, a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian. Dito, space and time can be completely decoupled, absolute time can be defined etc. Starting from this space, we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes, knowing that the speed of light is what it is. It will turn out, malinaw, that we seen events with a delay. That is a first order (or static) epekto. The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion. It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction (for objects receding from us.)

Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation. Assume that you are a blind bat. You sense your space using sonar pings. Can you sense a supersonic object? If it is coming towards you, by the time the reflected ping reaches you, it has gone past you. If it is going away from you, your pings can never catch up. Sa ibang salita, faster than sound travel is “forbidden.” If you make one more assumption – the speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motion – you derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time!

We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time. Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs. If the sense modality (light for us, sound for bats) has a finite speed, that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space. And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality.

Ito, oo naman, is only my own humble interpretation of SR. I wanted to post this on a new thread, but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen.

Leo wrote:Minkowski spacetime is one interpretation of the Lorentz transforms, but other interpretations, the original Lorentz-Poincaré Relativity or modernized versions of it with a wave model of matter (LaFreniere or Close or many others), work in a perfectly euclidean 3D space.

So we end up with process slowdown and matter contraction, but NO time dilation or space contraction. The transforms are the same though. So why does one interpretation lead to tensor metric while the others don’t? Or do they all? I lack the theoretical background to answer the question.

Hi Leo,

If you define LT as a velocity dependent deformation of an object in motion, then you can make the transformation a function of time. There won’t be any warping and complications of metric tensors and stuff. Actually what I did in my book is something along those lines (though not quite), as you know.

The trouble arises when the transformation matrix is a function of the vector is transforming. Kaya, if you define LT as a matrix operation in a 4-D space-time, you can no longer make it a function of time through acceleration any more than you can make it a function of position (as in a velocity field, halimbawa.) The space-time warping is a mathematical necessity. Because of it, you lose coordinates, and the tools that we learn in our undergraduate years are no longer powerful enough to handle the problem.

Of Rotation, LT and Acceleration

Sa “Philosophical Implications” forum, there was an attempt to incorporate acceleration into Lorentz transformation using some clever calculus or numerical techniques. Such an attempt will not work because of a rather interesting geometric reason. I thought I would post the geometric interpretation of Lorentz transformation (or how to go from SR to GR) dito.

Let me start with a couple of disclaimers. First of, what follows is my understanding of LT/SR/GR. I post it here with the honest belief that it is right. Although I have enough academic credentials to convince myself of my infallibility, who knows? People much smarter than me get proven wrong every day. At, if we had our way, we would prove even Einstein himself wrong right here in this forum, wouldn’t we? :D Pangalawa, what I write may be too elementary for some of the readers, perhaps even insultingly so. I request them to bear with it, considering that some other readers may find it illuminating. Thirdly, this post is not a commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the theories; it is merely a description of what the theories say. O sa halip, my version of what they say. With those disclaimers out of the way, let’s get started…

LT is a rotation in the 4-D space-time. Since it not easy to visualize 4-D space-time rotation, let’s start with a 2-D, pure space rotation. One fundamental property of a geometry (such as 2-D Euclidean space) is its metric tensor. The metric tensor defines the inner product between two vectors in the space. In normal (Euclidean or flat) spaces, it also defines the distance between two points (or the length of a vector).

Though the metric tensor has the dreaded “tensor” word in its name, once you define a coordinate system, it is only a matrix. For Euclidean 2-D space with x and y coordinates, it is the identity matrix (two 1’s along the diagonal). Let’s call it G. The inner product between vectors A and B is A.B = Trans(Ang isang) G B, which works out to be a_1b_1+a_2b_2. Distance (or length of A) can be defined as \sqrt{A.A}.

So far in the post, the metric tensor looks fairly useless, only because it is the identity matrix for Euclidean space. SR (or LT), sa kabilang banda, uses Minkowski space, which has a metric that can be written with [-1, 1, 1, 1] along the diagonal with all other elements zero – assuming time t is the first component of the coordinate system. Let’s consider a 2-D Minkowski space for simplicity, with time (t) and distance (x) axes. (This is a bit of over-simplification because this space cannot handle circular motion, which is popular in some threads.) In units that make c = 1, you can easily see that the invariant distance using this metric tensor is \sqrt{x^2 - t^2}.

Continued…

Ang imitasyon 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 ipinapalagay 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, halimbawa, 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 “tunay” in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them. This is simply because the information carrier, lalo liwanag, 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. Ito ay palagi 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 “tunay” speed is subluminal while the “maliwanag” speed may be superluminal. This interpretation of the observation, sa aking pagtingin, breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer.

Ngayon, 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, maliban kung, oo naman, 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. Bukod, one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies. Kung hindi, 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! Ibig kong sabihin, 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 taon.

These are gravity related questions and fall under GR. My “teorya” doesn’t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all. I put theory in inverted quotes because, sa akin, 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. Muli, 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. Muli, it was a very satisfying read.

Salamat! 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. Kung hindi, 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,
– Mga kamay

Anti-relativity and Superluminality

Leo wrote:I have some problems with the introductory part though, when you confront light travel effects and relativistic transforms. You correctly state that all perceptual illusions have been cleared away in the conception of Special Relativity, but you also say that these perceptual illusions remained as a subconscious basis for the cognitive model of Special Relativity. Do I understand what you mean or do I get it wrong?

The perceptual effects are known in physics; they are called Light Travel Time effects (LTT, to cook up an acronym). These effects are considered an optical illusion on the motion of the object under observation. Once you take out the LTT effects, you get the “tunay” motion of the object . This real motion is supposed to obey SR. This is the current interpretation of SR.

My argument is that the LTT effects are so similar to SR that we should think of SR as just a formalization of LTT. (Sa katunayan, a slightly erroneous formalization.) Many reasons for this argument:
1. We cannot disentagle the “optical illusion” because many underlying configurations give rise to the same perception. Sa ibang salita, going from what we see to what is causing our perception is a one to many problem.
2. SR coordinate transformation is partially based on LTT effects.
3. LTT effects are stronger than relativistic effects.

Probably for these reasons, what SR does is to say that what we see is what it is really like. It then tries to mathematically describe what we see. (This is what I meant by a formaliztion. ) Mamaya sa, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (as in the observation of “maliwanag” superluminal motion), we thought we had to “take out” the LTT effects and then say that the underlying motion (or space and time) obeyed SR. What I’m suggesting in my book and articles is that we should just guess what the underlying space and time are like and work out what our perception of it will be (because going the other way is an ill-posed one-to-many problem). My first guess, nang natural, was Galilean space-time. This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath.

Discussion on the Daily Mail (UK)

On the Daily Mail forum, one participant (na tinatawag na “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about Ang imitasyon Universe on July 15, 2006. It was attacked fairly viciously on the forum. I happened to see it during a Web search and decided to step in and defend it.

15 Hulyo, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 sa 09:28 AM

Ah, Kek, you’ve given me a further reason to be distracted from what I should be doing- and I can tell you that this is more interesting at the moment.I’ve been trying to formulate some ideas and there’s one coming- but I’ll have to give it to you in bits.I don’t want to delve into pseudoscience or take the woo-ish road that says that you can explain everything with quantum theory, but try starting here: http://theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml

Ang “Journal Articlelink at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. It goes slightly off-topic, but you might also find the “Pilosopiya” link at the top left interesting.

Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 sa 06:17 PM

Regarding that web site wian.One does not need to ead past this sentence

Ang teoryang ng pisika ay isang paglalarawan ng katotohanan. Katotohanan ay nilikha out sa pagbabasa mula sa aming mga pandama. Knowing that our senses all work using light as an intermediary, is it a surprise that the speed of light is of fundamental importance in our reality?

to realise that tis web site is complete ignorant hokum. I stopped at that point.

16 Hulyo, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 sa 09:04 AM

I’ve just been back to read that bit more carefully. I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:(i) “Our perception of what is real is created out of the readings from our senses. I think that most physicists wouldn’t argue with that would they? At the quantum level reality as we understand it doesn’t exist; you can only say that particles have more of a tendency to exist in one place or state than another.(ii) The information that we pick up from optical or radio telescopes, gamma-ray detectors and the like, shows the state of distant objects as they were in the past, owing to the transit time of the radiation. Delving deeper into space therefore enables us to look further back into the history of the universe.It’s an unusual way to express the point, Sumasang-ayon ako, but it doesn’t devalue the other information on there. In particular there are links to other papers that go into rather more detail, but I wanted to start with something that offered a more general view.

I get the impression that your study of physics is rather more advanced than mine- as I’ve said previously I’m only an amateur, though I’ve probably taken my interest a bit further than most. I’m happy to be corrected if any of my reasoning is flawed, though what I’ve said so far s quite basic stuff.

The ideas that I’m trying to express in response to Keka’s challenge are my own and again, I’m quite prepared to have you or anyone else knock them down. I’m still formulating my thoughts and I wanted to start by considering the model that physicists use of the nature of matter, going down to the grainy structure of spacetime at the Plank distance and quantum uncertainty.

I’ll have to come back to this in a day or two, but meanwhile if you or anyone else wants to offer an opposing view, please do.

Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 sa 10:52 AM

I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:

I think the write is quit clear! WIANyou have re-written what he says to mean something different.

The writer is quite clear – “Once we accept that space and time are a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and that special relativity applies to the cognitive model, we can ponder over the physical causes behind the model, the absolute reality itself.

Blah Blah Blah!

The writer, Kamay Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-described “amateur philosopher”. What is he writes appears to be nothing more than a religiously influenced solipsistic philosophy. Solipsism is interesting as a philosophical standpoint but quickly falls apart. If Manoj can start his arguments from such shaky grounds without explanation, then I really have no other course to take than to accept his descriptions of himself asamateur”.

Maybe back to MEQUACK!

What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

This post is a long email discussion I had with my friend Ranga. The topic was the unreality of reality of things and how this notion can be applied in physics.

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 (sa aking opinyon, oo naman) 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. And they have articulated their thoughts in their works, probably better than I have in mine. Although it is always a good idea to go through the existing writings toclear 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, such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought.

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

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

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

Mon, Mayo 21, 2007 sa 8:07 PM.

Ako ay, to different extents, familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realitiesfrom 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 “ay”, existed in a variety of ways from a long time. Gayunpaman, such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences. There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences. Kaya, it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physicsby 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 journalhas 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 “napansing” boundariesin this case of course the speed of light.

Gayunpaman, it is quite inaccurate and superficial (sa aking opinyon) to think that there is some “ganap” reality beyond the “katotohanan” 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, drawing imaginary boundaries that some questions are too philosophical or too theological for now.

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 errorsaren’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, the question about reality or the lack of it has not been well incorporated into the physical sciences and I wish you the best in this regard.

Cheers
Ranga