SYMMETRY: A SUBSET OF UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY
What is the Difference between Cause and Reason?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking of Choice
2. Defining Causality
3. Defining Symmetry Causally
I discuss here the concept of symmetry and relate it to Universal Causality. I do not bring in the concept of Conservation here. Nor do we mention or discuss the mathematicians and physicists who deal with this concept, because such a short document cannot study their work or critique them in order to related them to Universal Causality.
1. Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking of Choice
Suppose that, by use of a conventionally decided unit of physically causal action α (of whatever, say, a photon) from A, the choice is met by the unit of action between two given electrons B and C. We consider B and C to be the immediate candidates for direct causal action by α, but the said causal action does not take place in B or C by an external causal action α from A. Then we tend to claim that there exists a PERFECT SYMMETRY OF CHOICE between B and C, for the unit of action α from A.
Whether α is from A or anything else does not matter here. What matters is that in nature such a perfect symmetry is never the case. Suppose there is no choice for α other than that between B and C, that is, there exist only A, B, and C in the world. In that case, at some point of time in the future of occurrence of the physically real mutual (causal, if A were to interact with B or C through the exertion of the causal action α) approach between (1) the unit of action α issuing from A and (2) any one or B and C, then there occurs the causal choice between the two.
If it is possible to stipulate that A, B, and C are in motion at various directions, then there exist some other D, E, etc. in the universe and A, B, and C have had causal interaction with many others. In that case, the decision of α for interaction with either B or C at a stipulated point of time lies in the acquisition of the knowledge as to how much A, B, and C have been causally affected by others, and to what extent of time.
This is not determinable given the fact that we are unable to causally contact all the agents of causal action upon A, B, and C. The final choice by us will be considering at least in a percentage-wise manner how much, how many other As, Bs, and Cs have causally influenced A, B, and C, beginning from a certain past relative point of time. But our decision is a speculation based on a few nearby-lying causal influences upon them. But this is not as much true as when we had the whole information.
We tend to term the action that follows with the so-called “choice” for B or C by the action potential α of A as symmetry breaking. Symmetry breaking here is nothing but the ability of any action potential α of A to affect B or C (or any other) processual entity causally – but this ability is presumed and calculated without taking, and without being able to take, into consideration all the causal antecedents of the action potential α of A and the processual entities B, C, etc.
These causal antecedents are such that, if known fully well, the action route of the action potential α of A can be predicted without access to the notion of symmetry or symmetry breaking. Such symmetry breaking may then even be cited by some physicists as the reason for the choice. Note also that this or any other concept of symmetry and symmetry breaking is not such that all the causal antecedents in A, B, C, etc. are already summed up in it. Recall to mind here also the Bohmian notion of hidden variables. Hidden variables are not actual variables, but instead, a device to merely represent unknown and non-represented variable values.
One may argue that symmetry too is causal. The direct cause of the choice is the action α by A on B or C. But even within the notion of the direct or immediate cause, cannot be included the notion of other external and remote causes of the event of the action potential α of A choosing B or C causally. That is, immediate causes do not contain within themselves all the remote past causal routes that have contributed to the choice by the action potential α of A to choose B or C causally at a moment to interact with.
This shows that the notions of symmetry and symmetry breaking are the results of conceptually ostracizing (or of our inability to reach and include) the past causal horizon of the causal event at discussion. Hence, these are instruments to do physics in our given context. This does not mean that science and philosophy should not recognize the universal nature of causality or that physics and philosophy should ostracize Universal Causality.
The action is physically processed in the form of a conglomeration of existent processes, whichever be the participating causal forces from within them and from outside – the latter of which normally are not being taken into consideration by the experiment and the symmetric-mathematical description, because there are limits to experimental setups and mathematical tools. But theoretically generalizing inquiry has no limits. This is why we need a theoretically generalizing notion of Universal Causality based solely on the notion of existence. The generalities in the natural kinds of physically existent processes are called ontological universals. These are not merely and exclusively in individual token entities.
In nature there are only causes, not reasons. Reasons are in human minds, and are active in two ways:
(1) In a connotative manner (i.e., consciousness notes together the generalities in processes. and then concatenates the connotative universals achieved / formed within consciousness in order to facilitates concepts and their expression in statements).
(2) In a denotative manner (i.e., connotative universals are mixed with brain elements and then expressed in symbols and language, and thereafter denotative universals are concatenated in various ways in symbolically formulated statements in language, mathematics, automated intelligence, and other symbolic instruments).
Both these are aspects of the constitution of reason in their own ways as and when they have to do with reasons in consciousnesses and expressions via symbols and languages. Causes in physical processes are existent as such outside our connotative universals, connotative concatenations of connotative universals, denotative universals, and denotative concatenation of denotative universals. Reasons occur in the concatenations of connotative and denotative universals, respectively in the pure conceptual aspect of consciousness and in its symbolizing aspect in various natural and artificial languages.
The symmetry or symmetry breaking in any given case is such an explanation, a reason. It is not a cause or the cause of anything. Many a time physicists tend to get confused between reasons and causes. Symmetry is just an example for instances where this universal phenomenon of confusion occurs.
2. Defining Causality
Anything existent is in Extension, i.e., is composite and thus has a finite number of parts, none of the parts of which can be taken as an infinitesimal in any exercise of division and counting. Anything in existence is in Change, i.e., all existent processes and parts thereof make new impact-generation on other such and as a result also within itself – this is the only other aspect of composition of existents. The latter part of Change, namely, the inner and inward action as a result of the previous action, is to be recognized as an additional action.
The combined action of Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but causation. Everything existent is in causality – hence Universal Causality. Causes are always in the Extension-Change-wise mode of being of existents. Extension and Change together are the exhaustive meaning of existence (To Be) of Reality-in-total. All Extension-Change-wise instances of existence are instances of causation.
In short, everything existent has parts (Extension), every part has parts because it is in Extension, and all of them are in their own proper action of impact-formation (Change) inwards and outwards. Extension and Change are the only two exhaustive modes of the meaning of existing non-vacuously. Every existent is thus in causal action.
Such causation is everywhere, in all existents, as the very implication of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is the principle of nature that is instantiated when the choice by a unit of processual action (α of any A) between two electrons (B, C) breaks the principle of symmetry. Symmetry breaking with respect to a preferred or prescribed sort of action should always be causal, because this event has a past causal horizon, however long. (The question as to whether the past causal horizon is physically past eternal or past finitely eternal is the cosmogenetic question. We do not treat it here.)
Symmetry and the symmetry breaking are names for what may be called reasons in any case that may be discussed. But reasons must be explained always in terms of the causal actions within the given contexts. If physics is unable to do that in any instance, it is not entitled to call it non-causality or a-causality. Nor should the situation be filled up with an indescribable something called vacuum energy, ubiquitous ether, etc., and make vacuum energy and ether do the creation of the universe/s.
If the various laws of Conservation are considered as instances of symmetry, such symmetry is not merely of a choice of interaction, but much more, as a symmetry that may be defined as not being otherwise than what the processes involved (and thus all that exist as processes) are.
Existent processes are fundamentally in existence, which is the same as being in Extension-Change, i.e., in Causal existence, and only derivatively (i.e., by preferring to involve only a few causes) from the continuously Causal existence are they in the states of symmetry or symmetry breaking – whatever be the states or choice of states considered. This is done in terms of reasons, in terms of conceptual explanation, all this is in fact based on causal processes that guide everything being considered for investigation in the cosmos.
3. Defining Symmetry Causally
To be clearer in terms of what physics does, symmetry is a mode of perception and explanation of causal physical action quantitively within a given limited context of causes, where the totally causal nature of all existents does not get considered as playing a direct role in the formation of the immediate causes that are being considered.
Universal Causality is equivalent to non-vacuous existence, because Universal Causality, composed of Extension and Change, is the very exhaustive meaning of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is physical-ontologically more a priori than the symmetry and symmetry breaking of some select states, where the state of having two sides, aspects, choices, possibilities of actions, etc. are based on the Extension-Change-wise modes of existent processes in being in finite measures of activity and in stability in the same finite measures of activity.
The finite measures of causal action may be quantified. But this quantification in terms of any conventional mode of measurement does not represent all that the physical processes involved are in themselves, in terms of all that have causally happened in them.
Symmetry is not a matter of absolutely virtual knowledge. It is naturally based on the causal action of parts in parts of the universe and their comparability with respect to certain criteria of comparison. Various mathematical tools have come to be used to make comparisons effective and productive.
But this is not the case concerning Universal Causality, which I have defined here, because mathematical applications in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. tend to forget the basic fact of the universality of Causality, which should have been dealt with in every little part of these sciences. This is the sad part of the story of Universal Causality.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
Raphael Neelamkavil "Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. Causal or "Rational"?"
Emmy Noether has described the relation between symmetry and conservation laws. This is the fundament of physics.
What you are describing is elusive. With no word you are mentioning conservation laws. But those laws are the base of any reasoning in physics.
Without a relation to the work of Emmy Noether, any consideration of symmetry and causality is absolutely unreasonable.
What you are writing here, makes physicists angry! It undermines the basics of physics in a respectless manner. Such an arrogation of putting personal opinions over obvious facts, is unbearable.
Thanks. If I had mentioned Emmy Noether, the text would be longer. If a mere mention would have done the effect, I am sorry. But there are others too, who applied and elaborated the notion in physics. Another person might say that I should have mentioned them too.
I agree that I should have mentioned the Conservation. But my aim was only to explain the connection between symmetry and causation.
As you know, supersymmetry is yet another related problem. I would not have mentioned that notion in my text. I worked just on a one way of characterizing the notion.
Now why should physicists be angry with me for doing what I can? My request to you is not to be angry for this as a physicist. Forgive me my mistakes or omissions. If possible, please read what I wrote in the lead-text and critique it. I do not think that I wrote anything arrogantly. (Not 'arrogation', but 'arrogance'.) But be sure of one thing: I can only write my personal opinions and give arguments in support of them. I cannot have access to anyone else's opinions and write them down here as my science.
Raphael Neelamkavil
The problem is not that you do not mention Emmy Noether and the fundaments of physics, she discovered. It is that you try to establish direct relations between symmetry and causality, ignoring the existing relations between conservation laws and causality. This activates a new arbitraryness, which does not exist in physics because already different conservation rules have been established according to different symmetries.
You also do not specify what kind of symmetries have what kind of consequences. You present a new approach to the basics of physics, ignoring the existing approach and beeing much less specific compared to the allready existing approach. Your approach is extremely redundant, arbitrary, unspecific, and misleading. In only one sentence you confirm that there is a relation between symmetry and conservation laws.
With other words, you are only beating around the bush without presenting something comprehensible.
In my opinion, the more important Law is Universal Causality. Symmetry is a manner of covering the immediate past causes and deciding how a physical process may be theorized about. But Conservation (of matter-energy) is just a manner of claiming that whatever exists, exists however. Conservation of spin and other things are only conservation pertinent to existent matter-energy.
Now, in the lead-text here, I have treated Universal Causality in connection with symmetry. That is all.
Coming to "beating around the bush without presenting something comprehensible", I say: My aim is clearly to clarify many things in cosmology and physics. Clarification needs systemic foundation. Systemic foundation because that alone connects the various notions at the foundations. Insofar as what I wrote is systemic (connecting all the notions at the foundation with each other), you are sure to find some difficulty in reading. This is why I requested the reader to read carefully. As far as I know, I have not used any term without explaining. If you think differently, please tell me which notions.
Without doing that, you please do not beat around the bush.
Raphael Neelamkavil
You are talking about a systemic foundation to clarify things in physics and cosmology. Why do you then present a new systemic foundation on an empty ground? It would have been correct and comprehensible if you describe the difference of your systemic foundations and the systemic foundations of physics.
Sorry, but from what you are writing it appears as you have no idea about the systemic foundation of physics. If ever this apparent impression is wrong, then I again must ask, why you avoid presenting any relation between your alleged systemic foundations and the systemic foundations given in physics?
But I cannot teach you the systemic foundations of physics. I only can give you some hints. Systemic foundations of physics often are domain specific. (Relativity theory, Quantum Physics, Thermodynamics,...) But there are also common foundations given. However, you cannot refer to the systemic foundations of physics without referring to physics.
U: "Why do you then present a new systemic foundation on an empty ground?"
I present a relatively new systemic foundation because I have developed it. Whether it is on an empty ground or not is to be decided by the many scholars and scientists who read it. You are one of them.
I have developed my manner of thinking of it here. But I have done it in conversation with the existing system/s in my books. If u want to read, kindly see my books. It is impossible to do it here as far as the time and space available are concerned. Moreover, instead of repeating it all here, is it not better to spend time for further productive work?
U: "but from what you are writing it appears as you have no idea about the systemic foundation of physics."
Very good that u say so. I do not feel offended at all, because it is your opinion.
U: "However, you cannot refer to the systemic foundations of physics without referring to physics."
I do make references to physics, but not in the way u want me to. Agreed.
Raphael Neelamkavil "I present a relatively new systemic foundation because I have developed it."
You have developed a new systemic foundation to clarify things in physics and cosmology. What is now founded, what was not founded before?
In science and philosophy of science, it is not that nothing is founded in any manner. There are better ways of founding. If not, we would all have to obey Stephen Hawking who said that by the year 2000 everything theoretically new in physics would already have been done, and only some applications and elaborations would remain. The moment I read of it few years before 2000, I felt pity for his knowledge of the foundations of physics. Not only I, but also you, I am sure, would have thought so. That is because you have not only the intellect to study but also the intellect to look for the theoretical foundations of science.
More than being a mere physicist, it is necessary, I think, to do a lot of the philosophy of science to get into (to attempt to formulate) the ever-better foundations of the sciences, especially the philosophy of physics to do the foundations of physics.
I do not try to show you in poor light. I try to highlight another area of possibilities. I may be wrong, but, for the time I think what I said here.
Raphael Neelamkavil , Even if there is symmetry, isn't it asymmetry just because there is invariance that time cannot be reversed?
✕ symmetry＝invariance, 〇 asymmetry→invariance
c²＝w²±v²
c: invariant speed of light, w: proper speed of light, v: velocity of motion.
If time is asymmetrical, does the law of causality break down?
Causality never breaks down, because it is not merely a temporal principle. It is the Law that depends on the very notion of the non-vacuous existence of anything.
I know you do not understand exactly what I meant here by Causality. Please read the lead-text of the following discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Counter-Argument
As I said before, it is a study on which physics seeks and presupposes good principles.
How does your idea differ from the conventional one and what are the advantages?
I shall try to reply by citing a question from you previous intervention: "Even if there is symmetry, isn't it asymmetry just because there is invariance that time cannot be reversed?"
Invariance can be of many things, e.g., the invariance of a certain quality of all existents. Temporal invariance, spatial invariance, etc. are other examples.
Symmetry taken as temporal invariance is a partial statement of the invariance of causation. This is because causation is not of time but of what we term spatio-temoral processes.
But please note that space is not the container of things, time is not the container of change. Space and time are the measuremental aspects of the Extended and Changing natures respectively of existent physical processes. In that case, Extension and Change are physical-ontologically real; and space and time are mere epistemic notions. Epistemic means knowledge-based. If perceiving minds do not exist, space-time do not have any significance. But the Extension and Change in physical processes will continue.
1. Physicists do not note the significance of this when they speak of symmetry and asymmetry. Symmetry and asymmetry, say, of time are nothing but "the invariance and variance of the temporal measurements". Does that have much significance, if these are only of our measurements, and the physical processes are not affected by our measuremental concepts?
2. If we use Extension-Change as the most fundamental primitive natures of existent processes, then it is easy to see that despite the measurementally linear nature of any measurement of time any part of nature does not cease to be changing by continuing to be in an extended manner.
3. Now come to c as the invariant speed of light. You know the Lorentz factor is the square root of (1 - v squared minus c squared). If we fix c, v cannot supersede c in speed. But if a big density explosion is such that the density determines (causes) at least the first emissions (which then propagate out) of energy-wavicles are at a speed greater than c (call it C1), then in such a universe v can exceed c. That is, superluminal velocities need not be negative value, and some calculations involving C need not involve complex numbers, as E. C. G. Sudarshan (and, I forgot the name of the Chinese physicist who too made the same conclusion) had once thought.
This implies that fixing the measurement of time in terms of a fixed speed of light is acceptable only if no superluminal velocities exist. There can be C1, C2, etc.
To put some implications of these thoughts:
Symmetry and asymmetry in terms of measurements (epistemic!) of time, which is performed in terms of c, are a local affair. If the cosmos is not a merely finite-content universe of ours, and instead there are an infinite number of universes beyond ours ((https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC)), then it is better to base symmetry and asymmetry on Extension and Change. Even photons must be extended and hence have parts. Hence, by any reason, they cannot be the representatives of the highest speed in the cosmos. Photons' parts will be such that they (not only they) MAY involve higher speeds if excited enough to split into emissions. If photons (also neutrinos, gravitons, etc.) are not compositional in nature, i.e., are not extended within, then they are just absolute vacua, and cannot exist. This is a solid physical strengh of the notion of Extension-Change as the very and only exhaustive implications To Be.
In contemporary physical notions of symmetry breaking there will always be a breakdown of causality. This can be avoided if we take Extension-Change-wise existence as Causality.
I know that you will now say that I am not talking physics, but only philosophy. I think we can base physics on these fundamental notions of Extension, Change, and their combination, namely, Causality. That is what is aimed at in my work here.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Raphael Neelamkavil "If not, we would all have to obey Stephen Hawking who said that by the year 2000 everything theoretically new in physics would already have been done, and only some applications and elaborations would remain."
I do not admit to Steven Hawking that everything already has been done.
As an example, with the concept of potential energy, instead of a field energy density, there are embarassing errors in the theoretical physics.
The Hawking radiation of black holes also is a blatant error, because it violates baryon and lepton conservation. Black holes do not contain anti-matter. They have very high lepton and baryon numbers. These cannot be reduced by the emission of electromagnetic radiation.
Another awkward error is the imagination of an isotropic de Sitter Universe consisting of a one dimensional time space, combined with a 3-Sphere.
The problem is the fact, that a 3-Sphere is not isotropic. On the contrary to a 2-Sphere, the surface of a ball, where all great circles are geodesics, in a 3-Sphere this is not the case. Any pair of points is connected by exactly one geodesic arc. Which arc exactly, is determined by the Riemannian curvature tensor. The selection of that specific arc at every point, destroys the isotropy. This fact is in opposite to the statement of the big bang cosmology, that the universe is isotropic, and that this includes the option of having the allegedly also isotropic de Sitter structure.
There are many concrete fallacies in current physics, which finally lead to crackbrained theories like big bang and dark matter.
You see, there are quite some points where the current physics is totally wrong, in an even cringy way.
Therefor, I think the only way to get at least any impact, is pointing to concrete fallacies and to describe what exactly is wrong.
But even this is extremely difficult, because self-appointed authorities in physics, with an big network, tend to merciless disqualify persons with claims, deviating from the alleged expert knowledge.
Therefor, trying to establish a new way of thinking, right from the very basics, is hopeless. It is also hopeless, because it is impossible to present this new way of thinking in a comprehensible way.
INSTEAD OF CITING THE CONTEXT, U CITED ONLY A PART OF THIS: "In science and philosophy of science, it is not that nothing is founded in any manner. There are better ways of founding. If not, we would all have to obey Stephen Hawking who said that by the year 2000 everything theoretically new in physics would already have been done, and only some applications and elaborations would remain."
We were not discussing which all theories of Hawking are unacceptable. We spoke of the foundations of physics. For Hawking, all theoretical foundations of physics were already set, and nothing more needed to be done.
What I suggest therewith is that we need to improve the foundaitons.
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Raphael,
I like the way you are challenging the idea of symmetry breaking. It is worthwhile to challenge many of the foundational principles of quantum field theory. I'd like to engage in this with some open, respectful dialogue.
As you know, quantum mechanics gives us the tools to accurately predict the outcome of situations such as the one you are proposing, where A sends a photon to B or C. The results are accurate only in a statistical sense, not when it comes to individual outcomes.
What I hear you proposing is that it is not right to say these outcomes are truly random. It is more likely that there are simply other contingent influences that are not being considered, and if all of the influences are truly known, we would be able to predict individual outcomes as well. If I missed what you are proposing, let me know.
One of the problems that I see with what you are proposing, if I'm getting it right, is that the statistical accuracy of the predictions is extremely high. This suggests that all of the influences have been accounted for, or if there are other influences, they will have such small impacts on the outcome that they could not be a significant factor.
If I understand your argument correctly, you are suggesting that other factors can be influencing the outcome. The problem I see with this is that this ability to predict statistical results is so extremely accurate in quantum mechanics because there are in fact so very few degrees of freedom involved. In other words, there are so few actual factors that can influence the outcome.
However, let's take your argument as a potential theory. It seems to me that if your theory is correct, then you should be able to run a test where you can determine another factor that has been missed that is influencing the outcomes. If you could identify such an added factor, then you can show that this is truly a causal process, and there is no need for the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
On the other hand, if you cannot find any such added factor that can be determining the outcome, then it seems to me that there really is nothing to truly support your argument.
Or, are you suggesting that simply because the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking makes no sense unless it is driven causally that this supports your argument? Perhaps from a philosophical standpoint that might be a good argument, but it wouldn't be a good argument for physicists.
Doug Marman,
Let me cite an important paragraph from you: "If I understand your argument correctly, you are suggesting that other factors can be influencing the outcome. The problem I see with this is that this ability to predict statistical results is so extremely accurate in quantum mechanics because there are in fact so very few degrees of freedom involved. In other words, there are so few actual factors that can influence the outcome."
I agree. One important characterization to be added here is this: I am not arguing that the highly accurate statistical measurements must be substituted. This is our only available mode. But the moment we say that symmetry is broken, normally (at least in most cases) the physicist tends to believe that there is some non-causal element at work here, which is due to the ULTRA-MODERN QUANTUM CONCEPT OF CAUSALITY INVOLVING NON-CAUSALITY.
What I argue (in most of my published books) is that the very nature of statistical measurements is the presence some missing detail in the statistical measure, which has not been very important in identifying the causal network within the process, but has been instrumental in conceiving the process as involving something non-causal. It is this alleged non-causal stuff or element of the process that permits the naming of the process as symmetry-breaking -- in some cases even as symmetry-bound.
Since there exists no way other than the statistical, none will be able to suggest a method by which all the involved processes are included theoretically and in practical work in the technologies that derive from it.
The moment one new contributing element of the process is found, be sure that even this discovery involves statistical measurement and nothing else! But this should not mean that no other minute element of the process has been left out...! This conclusion too is of the essence of statistical measurement...!!
In short, the very concept of statistical measurement helps me to substantiate my claim/s.
Additionally, I have showed without any doubt that Causality is not a scientific law buy a pre-scientific law: see No. 2 in the present discussion's lead-text.
((Other examples are:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Counter-Argument
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Complexity_in_Science_Philosophy_and_Consciousness_Differences_and_Importance
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_Quanta_and_Gravitational_Quanta_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within_Do_they_Exist_or_Are_They_Mere_Mathematical_Equations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Complexity_in_Science_Philosophy_and_Consciousness_Differences_and_Importance))
I AM VERY THANKFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR PERCEPTION THROUGH THE TEXT AND YOUR WORDS OF APPRECIATION. There are very few persons of this kind.
- I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT Lenses of Perception Press.
Raphael Neelamkavil "We were not discussing which all theories of Hawking are unacceptable. We spoke of the foundations of physics. For Hawking, all theoretical foundations of physics were already set, and nothing more needed to be done. What I suggest therewith is that we need to improve the foundaitons."
No, the fallacies in current theoretical physics have not been caused by wrong or insufficient foundations. They have been caused by wrong conclusions, based upon the existing foundations.
Therefor new foundations or a new view on foundations, even if broadly accepted, would change nothing.
Hawkings theory of black hole radiation violates the foundation "baryon and lepton number conservation". The real problem in theoretical physics is, that an expert or an expert group can claim anything, including misinterpretations of the existing foundations of physics.
U may think that "new foundations or a new view on foundations would change nothing". I do not think so. U seem to suggest that the conceptual foundations of physics do not matter! Very good, and continue with the same convictions!!
I did not argue against your pointing out the mistakes in Hawking's theory of black hole radiation.
Raphael Neelamkavil "U may think that "new foundations or a new view on foundations would change nothing".
I did not say that. New foundations or a new view on foundations does not prevent misinterpretations of foundations.
As already mentioned, my key critics concerns proposing new foundations as a kind of absolute finding, without considering already existing foundations. You should not try to wipe away everything other people have learned and then hope that they will be lucky having a chance to follow the great ideas of the unfailing master of science.
I did not try to wipe away everything existing. I have already been considering the foundations already done by the tradition. What I do is to prepare a meta-ontological foundation for physical science. You can continue with the existing foundations. But why not I just attempt?
Your statement: "You should not try to wipe away everything other people have learned and then hope that they will be lucky having a chance to follow the great ideas of the unfailing master of science." Why to be so afraid that all will feel bad or that I expect all to follow me?
I am just a human being. I will do only what a human being can do. Please have patience. Let me try to do what I can.
Raphael,
I read your No. 2 in the present discussion's lead text, as you suggested. Plus, I read the beginning of the first paper in the list you provided.
This lays out clearly what I would call your underlying assumption, and from that assumption I can see why you would conclude that the concept of non-causality found in quantum mechanics is flawed.
However, this doesn't explain why you said: "In short, the very concept of statistical measurement helps me to substantiate my claim/s."
Why do you think that it substantiates your claims? It seems that your assumptions are supporting your claims. That part I can see. But, how is the fact that quantum mechanical measurements are only accurate in a statistical sense supporting your claim that non-causality does not exist?
I'm interested in your response. I have a feeling that I may still be missing something.
Next, in your paper that you suggested reading, "The Irrefutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Counter-Argument?" you are asking if there is any counter-argument. Let me offer a possible counter-argument:
In Niel Bohr's talk, Light and Life, which was when he ventured into exploring how quantum mechanics might help explain how life works, he makes the interesting claim that subject and object cannot be distinguished. I take this to mean that if we consider the subject as being the representation of sentient agency, then there is no way to distinguish the sentient agent from its body. All that we can see or measure is the actions of its body.
This means that from an objective standpoint, the sentient agent exists vacuously, occupying to no space. Only the agent's body occupies space.
Now, here is how this might apply to this discussion: Biologists have faced something similar to the situation in quantum mechanics where the outcome of an experiment can only be predicted statistically. The situation is when it comes to predicting how living organisms will act in a given case. Biologists can easily determine what the statistical results can be in that given case, but any one living organism might act differently than expected.
Biologists have an explanation for this: Each organism can originate behavior from within. In other words, it can make a choice and it can act for a purpose. However, there is no objective causal way to describe the making of a choice or acting for a purpose.
We can list all of the known influences on an organism, but these are just influences, not causation that determines what the organism will do next.
In other words, biologists seem to face the same problem. And they have no better explanation for it than physicists do. But, the point I am making is that there might very well be some non-causal form of causation.
Also, here is another way of looking at this that seems to challenge what you are proposing. I would also like to hear your response to this as well.
You seem to suggest that it is the process of measurement that in some way may be causing this appearance of non-causal causality. However, I don't think this problem began with measurement. In fact, there are many well-known cases where symmetry breaking shows up even when there is no measurement going on.
For example, when moisture in the air suddenly turns to rain. This represents a break in the symmetry of the gas. We can know the factors affecting this transition, but it always begins with one water molecule that breaks with the symmetry first. Then others nearby start to break with the gaseous state and start to join in with the liquid state.
The same thing happens when salt crystals start to emerge from a dissolved state. This process can be provoked by providing a seed crystal, which then causes salt to break from the liquid state and shift to the crystal state more quickly. These are breaks in symmetry with no measurement process involved.
This suggests to me that there is something going on where symmetry can and does break without measurement. And we are still not able to explain or predict which molecule of water or salt will start the break. We can, however, describe statistically what will happen when the temperature goes down and other influences that affect this change.
Raphael Neelamkavil "What I do is to prepare a meta-ontological foundation for physical science."
What is meta-ontological ?
"Why to be so afraid that all will feel bad or that I expect all to follow me? I am just a human being. I will do only what a human being can do. Please have patience. Let me try to do what I can."
Of course I will let you do what you can. I also do not think it is bad. But I am afraid, that without a relation to the existing foundations it will be completely useless and not comprehensible for anybody, except for yourself.
If you could add examples how to replace or complement foundations to avoid misconceptions, then it would be great.
The terms "meta-ontological" and "meta-mtaphysical" are simple to search in the internet. These have to do with conditions for the possibility of existence and discourse on existents. There are other literature-based and interpretation-science-based definitions. These are not useful for physics.
Let us see whether a physical-ontological set of foundations, beyond what we are so far used to, would be of any use.
Raphael Neelamkavil
May be it is still not obvious for you what I want to tell. The contribution of Doug Marman provides an additional hint. He opened the view on the rich world of subject specific foundations of science. Your approach and your focus is on general foundations on a higher level. But without bridges to the specific world, your ideas only will rise like a weather ballon into the thin air of detached philosophy and explode there.
Doug Marman, I read your interesting questions. Thanks. I need to write down a detailed response. It will take time. Today and tomorrow I am fully engaged in various works. I will find time to write in detail. Am very pleased that you asked these questions. The latter portion of your intervention is suitable to be posted also in the other discussion on Causality. I shall copy that part and put it up there, so that the readers can profit out of it. Thanks. Within 2 or 3 days I will respond.
Doug Marman, here are my reflections on the question of Universal Causation and Statistics.
I shall explain the connection between the pre-scientific Law of Universal Causality and all sorts of statistical explanations in physical sciences in the following manner. The way it takes may look strange, but it will be interesting enough to consider.
To repeat in short what is already said a few times: by all possible assumptions, to exist (which is To Be with respect to Reality-in-total) is non-vacuous. Hence, any existent must have Extension, have finite-content parts. These parts, by the only other possible assumption, must yield impacts on other parts both external and internal. This is Change.
These impacts are always finite in the content and measured extents. The measured extents of Extension and Change are space and time. Without measurements we cannot speak of space and time as existing or as pertaining to existents. What pertain to all existents as most essential are Extension and Change. Existence in Extension and Change means that finitely extended objects give origin to finite impacts. This is Causality. Every existent is Extension-Change-wise existent, and hence everything is causal.
As pertinents to existents, Extension and Change are the most applicable qualities / universals of the group of all entities, i.e., Reality-in-total, because they belong to all that exist. Since Extension and Change are not primarily in our minds, let us call them as ontological universals. As is clear now, Extension and Change are the widest possible and most general ontological universals. All universals are pure qualities. All qualities other than ontological universals are mixtures of pure qualities.
There are physical-ontological universals / qualities that are not as universal as Extension and Change. ‘Colouredness’ / ‘being coloured’, ‘redness’, ‘unity’ / ‘being a unit’, ‘being malleable’, ‘being rigid’, etc. are also pure qualities. These are pertinents not merely of one existent process. They belong to many. These many are a group of existent processes of one kind, based on the one classification quality. Such groups of Extension-Change-wise existent entities are termed natural kinds.
Ontological universals can be reflected in minds too, but in very meagre ways, not always, and not always to the same extent of correspondence with ontological universals, because they are primarily in existent processes. A direct reflection is impossible. The many individuals who get them reflected meagrely formulate them differently.
The supposed common core of ontological universals in minds is a pure notion, but they are mere notions idealized by minds. These ideals are also not inherited of the pertinent ontological universals of all relevant existent things, but at least by way of absorption from some existents, in whatever manner of correspondence with ontological universals. I call them connotative universals, because they are the pure aspects of the conceptual activity of noting objectual processes together.
In brains connotative universals can show themselves only as a mixture of the relevant connotative universals and the relevant brain elements. Please note that this is not a brain-scientific statement. It is the best imaginable philosophical common-sense on the brain-scientific aspect of the formation of connotative universals, and hence it is acceptable to all brain scientists. In brains there are processes that define such activities. But it needs only to be accepted that these processes too are basically of Extension-Change-wise existence, and hence are causal in all senses.
Connotatives are just representations of all kinds of ontological universals. Connotatives are concatenated in various ways in connection with brain elements – in every case highly conceptually and symbolically. These concatenations of connotatives among themselves are imaginations, emotions, reflections, theories, etc., as considered exclusively in the mind.
Note here also that the lack of exact correspondence between ontological and connotative universals is what makes ALL our statements essentially statistical and non-exact at the formation of premises and at the jump from premises into conclusions. The statistical aspect here is part of the process of formation, by brains, of connotatives from ontological universals. This is the case in every part of imaginations, emotions, reflections, theories, etc., even when statistical measurements are not actually being made part of the inquiry as a matter of mentally guided linguistic and mathematical procedures.
Further, connotative universals are formulated in words expressed as terms, connected with connectives of processes, and concatenated in statements. These are the results of the symbolic functioning of various languages including mathematics. These are called denotative universals and their concatenations. All symbolic activities function at this level.
Now coming to statistics as an applied expression of mathematics. It is nothing but denotative universals concatenated in a quantitatively qualitative manner. Even here there is a lot of lack of exactness, which are known as uncertainty, randomness, etc. Pay attention to the fact that language, mathematics, and its statistical part work at the level of denotative universals and their concatenations. These are naturally derived from the conglomerations of ontological universals via concatenations of connotatives and then translated with further uncertainties unto denotative concatenations.
Causation works at the level of the conglomerations of ontological universals, which are in existent things themselves. That is, statistical connections appear not at the ontological level, but at the denotative level. When I say that this laptop is in front of me, there is a directness of acceptance of images from the ontological universals and their conglomerations into the connotative realm of connotations and from there into the denotative realm of connotations. But in roundabout conclusions regarding causal processes at the physical-ontological level into the statistical level, the amount or extent of directness of judgement is very much lacking.
I do not claim this explanation to be great or complete. It is a first-level clarification. If you have questions, please feel free to ask.
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Raphael Neelamkavil,
I am going to try to simplify what you are saying. Correct me if I am getting any of this wrong.
It sounds like what you are saying is that your underlying assumption is for something to have existence in reality it cannot be vacuous. It must have extension and must be involved in interactions that create change.
This doesn't address my challenge, where I say that sentient agency exists, and yet it of itself can be vacuous if it is something different from a body, as Niel Bohr proposed.
Your answer, if I understand it correctly, is that sentient agency is not independent of the body. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that it must be a by-product of the body and the body's interactions. And the reason it is impossible to predict what a living creature might do next is simply because there are far too many factors involved.
I said before, that it isn't fair to suggest that there are far too many factors involved in the case of quantum superposition states. The reason this doesn't work is because there are so very few factors and they are all known. The only thing that is not known is which of the possible superposition states will be selected.
I think that you and I both agree on the general meaning of saying that something is random. This usually means that there are so many factors involved that we simply do not know what the result will be. This is what we mean when we say that the outcome of a role of dice is random.
However, I don't think it is fair or honest to apply this to the quantum case of superpositions. Calling the outcome random is misleading because it suggests that there are too many factors. It would be more honest to say that we simply do not know why one superposition state becomes actualized in a specific instance. Saying it is random is saying nothing at all because it doesn't actually offer an explanation since there are not too many factors. There is no way to string factors together in any way that we know of that can explain why we cannot predict the outcome even if we know all of the factors that are involved.
I can see that your underlying assumption leads to the conclusion that it must be a case of a random outcome. I don't think this properly addresses the difficulty of the situation.
I offered a second case where we see similar results: The case where living organisms clearly act as sentient agents. They can originate behavior and act for a purpose. This behavior cannot be explained by mere chemical or physical reactions. This is one of the many reasons why living organisms are not machines. Something else is clearly going on.
There are many reasons to suggest that living creatures are not machines. Here is one: You can take a machine completely apart, until you have all the pieces separated. Then you can reassemble the parts. If you are careful in reassembling, the machine will work exactly as it did before.
However, if you try to take an organism apart, it will die. And if you reassemble all of the parts, it will not come back to life. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that can explain this.
Here is another example: Clearly, machines are designed to be controlled from the outside. That is why machines are so useful. Life forms, however, appear to be designed to originate behaviors from within, and this is what makes them impossible to fully control from the outside.
If I understand your response, the behavior of sentient agency that we see in living organisms must be the result of the body's interactions. This sounds like an assumption that living organisms are fundamentally just machines. Highly complex machines, of course, but they are driven by nothing more than a series of chemical or physical reactions. It seems that your underlying assumption is driving this conclusion.
I follow your argument, but it seems to be constraining the possibilities, leaving us with a conclusion that does not fully appreciate the challenge of the quantum case, or the challenge of explaining biological life.
Wouldn't it be more honest to say that we do not yet understand what makes life work, and we do not yet understand why one superposition state is chosen over another during a measurement?
And if we do not yet understand, might this not mean that perhaps we need less constraints on how things must work? Shouldn't we be expanding the possibilities? Isn't it possible that there could exist forms of causation that are not deterministic?
Doug Marman, thanks.
First, I have a question of clarification, and then a comment.
I hope you mean by superposition the superposition of states of wave and particle. Do you mean anything more by it? After knowing this, I would like to write to you the essential arguments on it given in my Ph.D. work, published 2014: Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology.
Second, I perfectly understand your suggestion on the difference between machine and living organisms. I have a whole lot to develop on organisms, but I have postponed it to a future date. I think we can include living organisms within Universal Causality and still avoid mechanism.
Something in this direction has been suggested in two of my discussions: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reconciliation_of_Causation_and_Freedom_Unifying_and_Axiomatizing_the_Sciences
and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Complexity_in_Science_Philosophy_and_Consciousness_Differences_and_Importance
I think that the difference between machines and living organisms is one of a certain type of complexity of causation, and not of causation and freedom as the tradition has thought all these millennia. I DO HAVE A LOT TO DISCUSS HERE, BUT THE ONLY OBSTRUCTIONS ARE TIME AND SPACE. If you were here or I there with you, we would have been able to discuss this matter for days and weeks, and I would have been able to present a really acceptable and new manner of seeing the difference.
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
Sorry, but I feel myself cover filled by too much irrelevant information which, to make things worse, is omnipresent in many threads.
Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
I have seen a lot of physics and mathematics students mistaking the logical ways in which they experiment and theorize as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics. They even think of these ways as the possession of scientists. Imaginably, in this pride, they are encouraged by their scientific temper. More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophers, are a mere waste of time. (If you want me to cite, I suggest to get into some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking.) The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics.
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...
Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...
PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Since time is at the speed of light, it has never flowed in the opposite direction, so time symmetry is not a reversal of cause and effect.
Shinsuke Hamaji, thanks. The so-called reversal of cause and effect by time symmetry cannot happen even in cases where time is measured in terms of any superluminal velocity, if superluminal velocities exist. In any case, any superluminal velocity has to be a finite velocity.
Moreover, time is by measurement in terms of a criterion. The criterion will be a speed, measured but really out-there in speeding physical existents. Hence, the changes caused due to speeding (and otherwise) are physical, and time is epistemic. What do you think of this?
Raphael Neelamkavil , The medium of light energy is the ether of light. Time and its speed of light change in sync. Therefore, the speed of light remains unchanged in the observer's time. That's why I call that ether of light "light that doesn't fly."
In Special and General Relativities and in all other branches of physics the medium of observation of all movements happens to be photonal. But if in the so-called "one divided by the root of (one minus [v-squaired divided by c-squaired])", c is substituted by a superluminal C, then v could have any velocity up to C and not C...! If this is used to measure anything, then such time measurement would vary only according to C...! Such a C could be involved in the entanglement experiment as the causal communication between the two prior-entangled particles A and B.....!
Raphael Neelamkavil , "In Special and General Relativities and in all other branches of physics the medium of observation of all movements happens to be photonal."
No, you are confusing light ether with light energy.
This is difficult to understand. Would you tell me the difference between light ether and light energy in a way that (1) one is being used for measurement and the other not, and (2) both exist independently of each other, or one exists really and the other merely theoretically? I made these two suggestions because only these came to my mind. If there are other possibilities, please clarify. Please note that I asked these only for clarity as to what you mean by these two concepts.
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Raphael Neelamkavil
In the uncertainty relationship between inertial mass m₁ and Compton wavelength λ, h/c＝⊿m₁⊿λ.
When the frequency f, which is time, is measured, p=hf/c=m₁λf=m₁w.
The momentum p and energy E=pc of light are determined.
The energy of light is that E.
The ether of light, on the other hand, is time and its medium.
Therefore, both are required for measurement.
What is this ether? How can time have a medium? You wrote here of the uncertainty relation, Compton wavelength, etc.
But then you speak of an ether. What is the stuff of ether? Why should there be ether as a medium of time, excluding space? Even for space and time why should there be a medium, except existent physical processes?
I think, instead of explaining what ether is, you speak of other things.
Raphael Neelamkavil, Please learn history well. The wave theory of light requires ether, and light is not light waves, photons, or photon quantum energy.
Luminiferous aether or ether[1] (luminiferous meaning 'light-bearing') was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[2] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space (a vacuum), something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum (space completely filled with matter) of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Einstein, who confused light ether with light energy, did not care whether there was ether or not.
How can time not have a medium? That's your fantasy, right?
In the old history there have been many ideas. Ether -- already known to me. My question is not that. What according to you is ether? Is it existent or not? Or, a mere theoretical entity?
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
Einstein suggested that electromagnetic and gravitational fields be called ether.
Time passes and energy propagates there.
This is the concept of proximity action.
You may say that something like this doesn't exist, but why is it a problem?
But whether electromagnetic and gravitational fields are the same as what is called ether, why not call them only as ether? Why to use a different name like electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields? Or are these two fields two different sorts of ether? If they are, then why a name 'ether'?
Is the ether that Einstein meant and the ether that his other contemporaries spoke of the same?
Electromagnetic and gravitational waves must be something existent. If not existent, then they are pure vacua. Does that mean that such ether kinds are physically existent? If physically existent, then they cannot be body-less stuff. As propagations, they must, any case, have some sort of body in every part of the propagation. If bodily, then they are in Extension and Change!
The idea of stationary ether has not been denied.
According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
Your story has a poor balance between judgment and knowledge.
You: "The idea of stationary ether has not been denied."
Raphael: Since it has not been denied, should stationary ether exist as something other than pure vacuum?
Hence, your story has a poor balance between judgment and knowledge.
Even if you don't understand what has been explained to you, you still have the will to rebel.
good bye!
You can rebel saying, "Time passes and energy propagates there." Should I bend the head before you and accept such words? When I used the same words to you, it became rebellion. Rebellion to my professor!
You are able to say statements like "Time passes and energy propagates there", and can I not ask why time can just "pass"....?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy