# Archivo de la etiqueta: Debates

Debates on Physics, Philosophy and the Unreal Universe on Various Forums.
(Mostly my writings only)

# Universe – Size and Age

He publicado esta pregunta que me estaba molestando cuando leí que encontraron una galaxia a unos 13 mil millones de años luz de distancia. Mi comprensión de esta afirmación es: A una distancia de 13 miles de millones de años luz, hubo una galaxia 13 Hace millones de años, de manera que podamos ver la luz desde ahora. ¿No sería eso quiere decir que el universo es al menos 26 miles de millones de años de edad? Debe de haber tomado la galaxia acerca 13 miles de millones de años para llegar a donde parece ser, y la luz de ella debe tomar otra 13 miles de millones de años en llegar hasta nosotros.

Al responder a mi pregunta, Martin y Swansont (que supongo que son phycisists académicos) señalar mis conceptos erróneos y esencialmente me pregunta para conocer más. Todo se responderán cuando estoy asimilando, parecería! 🙂

This debate is published as a prelude to my post on the Big Bang theory, coming up in a day or two.

 Mowgli 03-26-2007 10:14 PM

Universe – Size and Age
I was reading a post in http://www.space.com/ stating that they found a galaxy at about 13 mil millones de años luz de distancia. I am trying to figure out what that statement means. A mí, it means that 13 Hace millones de años, this galaxy was where we see it now. Isn’t that what 13b LY away means? Si es así, wouldn’t that mean that the universe has to be at least 26 miles de millones de años de edad? Quiero decir, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?
 swansont 03-27-2007 09:10 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329204) Quiero decir, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…)

Ignoring all the rest, how would this mean the universe is 26 miles de millones de años de edad?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329204) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?

The speed of light is an inherent part of atomic structure, in the fine structure constant (alpha). If c was changing, then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change. There hasn’t been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed (there has been the occasional paper claiming it, but you need someone to repeat the measurements), and the rest is all consistent with no change.

 Martin 03-27-2007 11:25 AM

To confirm or reinforce what swansont said, there are speculation and some fringe or nonstandard cosmologies that involve c changing over time (or alpha changing over time), but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out.I’ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change. They rule it out more and more accurately with their data.So it is probably best to ignore the “varying speed of light” cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology.You have misconceptions Mowgli

• General Relativity (la 1915 theory) trumps Special Rel (1905)
• They don’t actually contradict if you understand them correctly, because SR has only a very limited local applicability, like to the spaceship passing by:-)
• Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict, believe GR. It is the more comprehensive theory.
• GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase. the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff (you can’t catch up with and pass a photon)
• So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c. (It’s far away, SR does not apply.)
• This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year
• Google the author’s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis.
• We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away.
• You need to learn some cosmology so you wont be confused by these things.
• Also a “singularity” does not mean a single point. that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same.
• A singularity can occur over an entire region, even an infinite region.

Also the “big bang” model doesn’t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point. It shouldn’t be imagined like that. The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am. I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off. Google it. Get it from your local library or find it online. Best advice I can give.

 Mowgli 03-28-2007 01:30 AM

To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (que es 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. Así 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.To Martin: Tienes razón, I need to learn quite a bit more about cosmology. But a couple of things you mentioned surprise me — how do we observe stuff that is receding from as FTL? Quiero decir, wouldn’t the relativistic Doppler shift formula give imaginary 1 z? And the stuff beyond 14 b LY away – are they “outside” el universo?I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned. Gracias.
 swansont 03-28-2007 03:13 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329393) To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (que es 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. Así 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.

That would depend on how you do your calibration. Looking only at a Doppler shift and ignoring all the other factors, if you know that speed correlates with distance, you get a certain redshift and you would probably calibrate that to mean 13b LY if that was the actual distance. That light would be 13b years old.

But as Martin has pointed out, space is expanding; the cosmological redshift is different from the Doppler shift. Because the intervening space has expanded, AFAIK the light that gets to us from a galaxy 13b LY away is not as old, because it was closer when the light was emitted. I would think that all of this is taken into account in the measurements, so that when a distance is given to the galaxy, it’s the actual distance.

 Martin 03-28-2007 08:54 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329393) I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned.

This post has 5 o 6 links to that Sci Am article by Lineweaver and Davis

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

It turns out the article was in the March 2005 issue.

I think it’s comparatively easy to read—well written. So it should help.

# Twin Paradox – Tome 2

The Twin Paradox is usually explained away by arguing that the traveling twin feels the motion because of his acceleration/deceleration, and therefore ages slower.

But what will happen if the twins both accelerate symmetrically? Es decir, they start from rest from one space point with synchronized clocks, and get back to the same space point at rest by accelerating away from each other for some time and decelerating on the way back. By the symmetry of the problem, it seems that when the two clocks are together at the end of the journey, at the same point, and at rest with respect to each other, they have to agree.

Entonces de nuevo, during the whole journey, each clock is in motion (accelerated or not) with respect to the other one. En Eslovaquia, every clock that is in motion with respect to an observer’s clock is supposed run slower. O, the observer’s clock is always the fastest. Así, for each twin, the other clock must be running slower. Sin embargo, when they come back together at the end of the journey, they have to agree. This can happen only if each twin sees the other’s clock running faster at some point during the journey. What does SR say will happen in this imaginary journey?

(Note that the acceleration of each twin can be made constant. Have the twins cross each other at a high speed at a constant linear deceleration. They will cross again each other at the same speed after sometime. During the crossings, their clocks can be compared.)

# 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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, pero vamos a llegar a ella más tarde.

Let&#8217;s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed. Es decir, 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. Lo sé, it is a violation of SR, cannot happen and all that, but stay with me for a second. Ahora, a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian. Aquí, 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, claramente, that we seen events with a delay. That is a first order (or static) efecto. 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. En otras palabras, 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.

Este, por supuesto, 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-PoincarÃ© 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. Así, 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, por ejemplo.) 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

En el “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) aquí.

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. Y, if we had our way, we would prove even Einstein himself wrong right here in this forum, wouldn&#8217;t we? En segundo lugar, 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 más bien, my version of what they say. With those disclaimers out of the way, let&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s along the diagonal). Let&#8217;s call it G. The inner product between vectors A and B is A.B = Trans(A) 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), Por otra parte, 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&#8217;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…

# Lucha contra la relatividad y 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 “reales” 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. (De hecho, 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. En otras palabras, 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. ) Más tarde, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (as in the observation of “aparente” 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, naturalmente, was Galilean space-time. This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath.

# Debate sobre el Daily Mail (Reino Unido)

En el foro de Daily Mail,,en,un participante,,en,lo que hay en un nombre,,en,empecé a hablar de,,en,en julio,,en,Fue atacado bastante viciosamente en el foro,,en,Por casualidad lo vi durante una búsqueda en la Web y decidí intervenir y defenderlo,,en,cuál está en un nombre en,,en,pastel,,tr,me has dado una razón más para distraerme de lo que debería estar haciendo,,en,y puedo decirte que esto es más interesante en este momento,,en,He estado tratando de formular algunas ideas y hay una próxima,,en,pero tendré que dártelo en pedazos,,en,No quiero profundizar en la pseudociencia o tomar el camino de la fantasía que dice que puedes explicar todo con la teoría cuántica,,en,pero intenta comenzar aquí,,en,theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml,,en,Artículo de revista,,en,el enlace en la parte inferior toca algunos de los puntos que discutimos en otra parte,,en, one participant (llamada “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about El universo Unreal 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 Julio, 2006

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

De, 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

La “Journal Article” link at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. Va un poco fuera de tema,,en,pero también puedes encontrar el,,en,enlace en la parte superior izquierda interesante,,en,Con respecto a ese sitio web wian.One no necesita leer más allá de esta oración,,en,Sabiendo que todos nuestros sentidos funcionan utilizando la luz como intermediario,,en,¿Es sorprendente que la velocidad de la luz sea de fundamental importancia en nuestra realidad?,,en,darse cuenta de que este sitio web es completamente ignorante,,en,Me detuve en ese punto,,en,Acabo de volver a leer eso con más cuidado,,en,No sé por qué el escritor lo expresó así, pero seguramente lo que quiso decir fue,,en,Nuestra percepción de lo real se crea a partir de las lecturas de nuestros sentidos.,,en,Creo que la mayoría de los físicos no discutirían con eso si,,en,A nivel cuántico, la realidad tal como la entendemos, no existe,,en, but you might also find the “Filosofía” link at the top left interesting.

##### Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 en 06:17 PM

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

Las teorías de la física son una descripción de la realidad. La realidad se crea a partir de las lecturas de nuestros sentidos. 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 Julio, 2006

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

I get the impression that your study of physics is rather more advanced than mine- como dije anteriormente, solo soy un aficionado,,en,aunque probablemente haya llevado mi interés un poco más lejos que la mayoría,,en,Estoy feliz de que me corrijan si alguno de mis razonamientos es defectuoso,,en,aunque lo que he dicho hasta ahora es algo bastante básico,,en,Las ideas que estoy tratando de expresar en respuesta al desafío de Keka son mías y otra vez,,en,Estoy bastante preparado para que tú o alguien más los derribe,,en,Todavía estoy formulando mis pensamientos y quería comenzar considerando el modelo que los físicos usan de la naturaleza de la materia.,,en,bajando a la estructura granulada del espacio-tiempo a la distancia de Plank y la incertidumbre cuántica,,en,Tendré que volver a esto en un día o dos,,en,pero mientras tanto, si usted o alguien más quiere ofrecer una opinión contraria,,en, 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, Por favor, hazlo,,en,Creo que la escritura es clara,,en,WIAN,,jw,has reescrito lo que dice que significa algo diferente,,en,El escritor es bastante claro,,en,Una vez que aceptamos que el espacio y el tiempo son parte del modelo cognitivo creado por el cerebro.,,en,y que la relatividad especial se aplica al modelo cognitivo,,en,podemos reflexionar sobre las causas físicas detrás del modelo,,en,La realidad absoluta misma.,,en,Bla, bla, bla,,en,El escritor,,en,es un empleado del banco OCBC en Singapur y se describe a sí mismo,,en,Lo que escribe parece ser nada más que una filosofía solipsista influenciada religiosamente,,en,El solipsismo es interesante como punto de vista filosófico pero rápidamente se desmorona,,en,Si Manoj puede comenzar sus argumentos desde tales motivos inestables sin explicación,,en,entonces realmente no tengo otro curso que tomar que aceptar sus descripciones de sí mismo como,,en.

##### Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 en 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! WIAN – you 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, Manos 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 as “aficionado,,en,Tal vez de vuelta a MEQUACK,,en”.

Maybe back to MEQUACK!

# Superluminal Laser Dots

A discussion in the Science Forums on the appearance of a laser dot on a ceiling. It is thought that if you pointed a laser dot on a ceiling and turned the laser gun fast enough, you could create superluminal laser dots. Could you, realmente?

# 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 (En mi opinión, por supuesto) I had to say. No obstante, 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 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, such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought.

Además, 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 en 8:07 PM.

Estoy, 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 “es”, existed in a variety of ways from a long time. Sin embargo, such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences. There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences. Así, 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 “percibida” boundaries – in this case of course the speed of light.

Sin embargo, it is quite inaccurate and superficial (En mi opinión) to think that there is some “absoluta” reality beyond the “realidad” 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 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, 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