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 “real” 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. (In fact, 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. In other words, 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. ) Later on, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (as in the observation of “apparent” 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, naturally, 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 (calledwhats-in-a-name”) started talking about The Unreal 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 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 at 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:

The “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 “Philosophy” link at the top left interesting.

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

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

The theories of physics are a description of reality. Reality is created out of the readings from our senses. 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 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 at 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, I agree, 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 at 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, Manoj Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-describedamateur 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!

Wat is eg,,en,Besprekings met Ranga,,en,Hierdie boodskap is 'n lang bespreking per e-pos wat ek met my vriend Ranga gehad het,,en,Die onderwerp was die onwerklikheid van die werklikheid van dinge en hoe hierdie begrip in die fisika toegepas kan word,,en,Gaan weer deur die debat,,en,Ek voel dat Ranga homself beter bekwaam in die filosofiese aangeleenthede beskou as ek,,en,ek doen ook,,en,Ek beskou hom as beter gelees as ek,,en,Maar ek voel dat sy aanname,,en,dat ek nie soveel geweet het dat ek oor sulke dinge moes praat nie,,en,het miskien sy mening bevooroordeeld en hom verblind vir sommige van die werklik nuwe dinge,,en,na my mening,,en,Ek moes sê,,en,nietemin,,en,Ek dink daar is 'n hele paar interessante punte wat tydens die debat na vore gekom het wat van algemene belang kan wees,,en,Ek het die debat geredigeer en geformateer vir leesbaarheid,,en? 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 (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.

Dit is waar dat baie blink mense nadink oor die dinge waaroor ek in hierdie blog en in my boek praat,,en,En hulle het hul gedagtes in hul werke verwoord,,en,waarskynlik beter as wat ek in myne het,,en,Alhoewel dit altyd 'n goeie idee is om deur die bestaande geskrifte te gaan,,en,maak my kop skoon,,en,soos een van my beoordelaars voorgestel het terwyl ek David Humes aanbeveel het,,en,so 'n wye lees skep 'n inherente risiko,,en,Dit is nie soseer die tyd wat dit sal neem om die geskrifte en die gepaardgaande geleentheidskoste daaraan te lees en te verstaan ​​nie,,en,dit is ook die feit dat alles wat u lees in u geassimileer raak en u opinies beïnvloed word deur hierdie briljante denkers,,en,Dit kan 'n goeie ding wees,,en,Ek kyk daarna asof dit die oorspronklike denke nadelig kan beïnvloed,,en,Tot die uiterste geneem,,en. 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 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, sodanige blinde assimilasie kan daartoe lei dat u opinies bloot 'n oplewing van hierdie klassieke denkrigtings word,,en,soos Hermann Hesse impliseer,,en,Siddhartha,,en,wysheid kan nie geleer word nie,,en,Dit moet van binne gegenereer word,,en,Ranga se woorde is groen,,en,Blou wanneer dit vir die tweede keer aangehaal word,,en,Myne is in Wit,,en,Pers wanneer dit vir die tweede keer aangehaal word,,en,Mon,,en,PM,,en,Ek is,,en,in verskillende mate,,en,vertroud is met die onderskeiding wat filosowe en wetenskaplikes maak ten opsigte van fenomenale en fisieke realiteite,,en,uit die werke van Upanishads,,en,aan die Advaitas / Dvaitas,,en,na die Noumenon / verskynsel van Schopenhauer,,en,en die blok Heelal van Spesiale Relatiwiteit,,en,en selfs die onlangse teorieë in fisika,,en,Kaluza en Klein,,en,Die insig dat wat ons waarneem, is nie noodwendig wat nie,,en,bestaan ​​van 'n lang tyd op verskillende maniere,,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, sulke insigte is nie maklik in alle wetenskappe omhels en opgeneem nie,,en,Daar is 'n enorme literatuur hieroor in neurowetenskappe en sosiale wetenskappe,,en,dit is inderdaad baie goed dat u probeer het om dit in die fisika in te bring,,en,deur ons vorige bespreking hieroor te onthou,,en,deur u inleiding tot die boek op die webwerf te lees en die kanteling van u referaat te verstaan,,en,kon dit nie in die joernaal vind nie,,en,is dit aanvaar,,en,Om aan te dui dat daar superluminale beweging kan wees en bekende verskynsels soos GRB's deur middel van 'n geluid kan verklaar,,en,in ons persepsie,,en,selfs in die fisiese instrumente,,en,is vrymoedig en het sorgvuldige aandag deur ander in die veld nodig,,en,Mens moet altyd vrae vra om oor te steek,,en,grense,,en,in hierdie geval natuurlik die snelheid van die lig,,en,dit is redelik onakkuraat en oppervlakkig,,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) om te dink dat daar sommige is,,en,werklikheid buite die,,en,ons teëkom,,en,Alhoewel dit belangrik is om te weet dat daar verskillende realiteite vir verskillende individue in ons is,,en,en selfs verskillende organismes,,en,afhangende van sintuie en intellek,,en,dit is ewe belangrik om te vra wat die werklikheid is as daar geen persepsie is nie,,en,As dit nie op enige manier verkry kan word nie,,en,wat is dit in elk geval?,,en,Is daar so iets?,,en,Is absolute werklikheid in die beweging van planete,,en,sterre en sterrestelsels sonder organismes daarin,,en,Wie beskou dit as sodanig as daar niemand is wat dit kan raaksien nie,,en,Watter vorm neem hulle aan?,,en,Is daar vorm,,en,In die toepassing van filosofie,,en,wat ek net as dieper en dapper vrae lees,,en,na die wetenskap,,en,wat ek gelees het as 'n ernstige poging om die vrae te beantwoord,,en,jy kan nie half met jou metodes werk nie,,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, teken denkbeeldige grense dat sommige vrae vir nou te filosofies of teologies is,,en,Terwyl u boek,,en,die opsomming ten minste,,en,blyk 'n belangrike punt huis toe te bring,,en,ten minste vir diegene wat nie in hierdie rigting gedink het nie,,en,dat die werklikheid wat ons waarneem afhanklik is van die medium / modus,,en,lig in sommige gevalle,,en,en die instrument,,en,sintuigorgaan en brein,,en,ons gebruik om waar te neem,,en,dit lyk asof dit 'n oppervlakkige idee agterlaat dat daar absolute werklikheid bestaan ​​as u hierdie perseptuele foute verwyder,,en,Is dit waarnemingsfoute?,,en,is nie perseptuele instrumente en persepsies self deel van die werklikheid nie,,en,Om aan te dui dat daar 'n ander werklikheid is as die som van al ons persepsies, is filosofies ewe verkeerd as om aan te dui dat dit wat ons waarneem die enigste werklikheid is,,en,Almal dieselfde,,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, die vraag oor die werklikheid of die gebrek daaraan is nie goed in die fisiese wetenskappe opgeneem nie en ek wens u die beste in hierdie verband toe,,en,Cheers,,en,klasse,,ga,Superluminale laserpunte,,en,'N Mens dink aan “Wat is regtig,,en,Besprekings met Ranga.,,en,Skakelkennisgewing,,en,Blogargief,,en,Kommentaar gesluit,,en.