The context which defines time and inherent vulnerabilities

[Kriminal99]

We define time by observing ordering of events.

 

Therefore if things occur in a different order than we observe them in for any reason our perception of time would be wrong.

 

For example imagine a deaf person on a train moving at high speeds. The train passes a person who fires a gun at tin can on the train on the opposite end of the car the deaf person is on. It is possible for the person to hear the bullet hit the tin can before hearing the gunshot. This person's perception of time would be confused.

 

Due to the speed of light such things occur infrequently with sight and other forms of measurement, but if there was a superluminal force acting on the smallest particles it would definitely make it very hard to understand a system of behavior without sorting out the actual order of events.

 

In fact such a force would be capable of explaining every subatomic phenomenon we have witnessed.

[Erasmus00]

Due to the speed of light such things occur infrequently with sight and other forms of measurement, but if there was a superluminal force acting on the smallest particles it would definitely make it very hard to understand a system of behavior without sorting out the actual order of events.

 

One could make the following argument- we can set up two different observers, A and B.

 

A sees event X happen, followed by event Y.

B sees event Y happen, followed by event X.

 

There is no reason to privilege to one observer over another- so we must accept As ordering of events and Bs ordering of events. Therefore (since the order is ambiguous), these two events cannot be causally related.

 

However, if we have superluminal propagation (in particular, if we don't have ANY limit on propagation speed for a force, etc) we can show that for ANY two events, we can arrange for A and B to see a different order.

 

This leaves us with two choices

1. give up causality entirely (no one wants this)

2. give up our assumption that A and B are on equal footing (there must exist some privileged observers)

3. give up the idea of superluminal forces.

 

Since no tests have ever shown anything to move at superluminal velocities, and no tests have ever been devised to tell the difference between two inertial observers A and B, most (if not all) scientists choose 3, and give up the idea of superluminal forces.

 

In fact such a force would be capable of explaining every subatomic phenomenon we have witnessed.

 

I fail to understand why you believe this- far from it. If we allow superluminal forces, we loose (not gain) explanations. We lose Maxwell's equations (no more explanations for electricity/magnetism), we lose general relativity (leaving Newtonian gravity with no explanations for the bending of light by gravity, gravitational lensing, etc), we lose a great deal of quantum field theory (no more explanations of anti-matter, etc).

-Will

[HydrogenBond]

What has always confused me is why time is always treated as a philosophical concept and not a thing. Look at the force of gravity. We assume gravity is a substantial thing since we can measure it. But if you look at the units of gravity it contains time. Does that make gravity 2/3 substance and 1/3 philosophy? How can something tangible contain intangible?

 

We can do it the other way and reduce the gravity equation so the units of time appear on one side of the equation and all the substance on the other side. Does this imply all the stuff we assume is tangible, equals a variable that is only philosophical?

[freeztar]

But if you look at the units of gravity it contains time.

 

:)

[Thunderbird]

 

Due to the speed of light such things occur infrequently with sight and other forms of measurement, but if there was a superluminal force acting on the smallest particles it would definitely make it very hard to understand a system of behavior without sorting out the actual order of events.

 

In fact such a force would be capable of explaining every subatomic phenomenon we have witnessed.

 

This superluminal force is what I think may be the super-force controlling all other forces. A current between two opposite poles of a singularity.

 

 

When we look back in time at our ultimate beginnings; the big bang, we are actually seeing the birth of time and forces, being brought forth ,expanding as out of a fountain,,.... might all these events be explained by an superluminal force emanating from a singularity,. An emanation field that encompass the singularity. Traveling in a circular motion around this point.

 

A main superluminal current cycling. like field lines around a bar magnet.

[Thunderbird]

 

:):);):)

 

 

 

Synergetic Topology

 

Fuller’s Synergetics, a dynamical topology, is not easy to describe or conceptualize. He calls his combination of topology and vectoral geometry, a “complex hierarchy of nuclear system intertransformabilities with low-order numerical and topological relationships.” It is a whole-systems geometrical model of energy configurations – vectoral modeling.

 

In other words, they are nature’s most economical forms and motions, based on the tetrahedron and great circles. They model nature and sensible reality; synergetics is the coordinate system of nature. Fuller contends, “forces in both macrocosmic and microcosmic structures interact in the same way, moving toward the most economic equilibrium patternings.”

 

Synergetics is energetic geometry, identifies energy with number, and employs 60-degree coordination based on closest-packed spheres. This includes the lattices of all atoms. Energy has shape. The synergetics of primary systems based on closest-packed spheres is based on the following:

 

Symmetrical omnitriangulated forms: tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron;

 

Omnitriangulated and omnisymmetrical forms: cube, diagonal rhomic dodecahedron, rhombic dodecahedron, dodecahedron, tetraxidecahedron, triaxidecahedron, enenicontrahedron.

 

The prime unit of synergetics, the Vector Equilibrium or cuboctahedron, is locally mixed symmetrical and asymmetrical.

 

Since the physical is always special case, Fuller spells Universe with a capital U. He called the physical Universe, “a discontinuity of such islanded events.” He called them “energetic-synergetic events.” Comprehensive Universe combines both the physical and metaphysical Universe. Asymmetry and disequilibrium are physical; symmetry an equilibrium are metaphysical.

 

Synergetics is concerned only with physically demonstrable phenomena. Matter never ceases its motion, and when it moves it does so synergetically. Only the metaphysical can “designedly organize the phyical.” Only the physical is alterable; the metaphysical is unalterable. Synergetic advantage flows from the macro to the micro, but not the other way around.

 

Fuller described how “nothing” becomes “something” through triangulation and geometric energy transforms based on the tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron, and vector equilibrium – from the smallest to the largest “things”. Size depends on frequency which is cyclic.

 

Conceptuality is metaphysical and independent of size. “Universe is, inferentially, the biggest system,” says Fuller. In this comprehensive system of energy processes, Universe is a nonsimultaneously potential vector equilibrium. This is a metaphysical assertion.

 

According to the French astrophysicists, Universe is physically a pentagonal dodecahedron. We might add, at least that is arguably true for now, as dynamic transforms seem typical of all such matrices

[HydrogenBond]

The point I made about gravity containing time units and time being a philosophical variable sort of implies that gravity and therefore the universe is at least part philosophical or metaphysical. To prove this, all we need to do is to compare philosophy and science.

 

Where philosophy and science differ is philosophy is not singular. There are many orientations of philosophy; one chooses what they like. Science is not suppose to be like philosophy where one has a choice since we are all using the same laws of natures. But if you look at gravity, we have Newtonian, we have General Relativity, we have String theory, Aether theory, wave theory to name a few. One has a choice just like in philosophy. Just like in philosophy, epicureans can argue with pragmatics and never agree. Divergence and convergence is a good litmus test for distinguishing between science that is partially philosophical and science that is science.

 

If you look at the universe, the vast distances in space are measured indirectly with time, since there is no meter stick long enough. One has to use motion and assumptions of how long light as traveled (time) to calculate distance. Since time is philosophical than all that science is also partially philosophical, since it working variable is still philosophical. Until time can be ironed out to beyond philosophy, all science that uses time, is by default, at least partially philosophical or metaphysical. Nobody wants to hears this, but I figured philosophers could see the logic instead of default to defending one of the many orientations of science philosophy.

 

The subtle difference philosophical science and philosophy is the former uses a math language and its logic, while the latter uses a language like English and the same principles of logic. Another difference is the math logic can employ something that normal philosophy does not allow itself. The math language can also use gibberish called chaos and statistics. This is not based on cause and affect, which is the hall mark of rational thinking. Picture carrying on a philosophical argument where one's opponent could by-pass logic, and use some form of random gibberish and win the argument. This would have been valid before the Age of Reason when various metaphysical arguments, like Lady Luck, were valid. This is a philosophy topic about the inherent vulnerabilities of metaphysical, so what about gibberish as a valid way to argue philosophy? Can we randomly argue off the top of our heads without any logic and still end up with evolution of thought?

[Kriminal99]

@ Hydrogen, I strongly agree. The way I see it, philosophy is the realm of human knowledge and we are all human thus any idea we come up with is subject to philosophical debate.

 

Time is just the ordering of events as we see it.

 

Gravity we would define as simply things falling to the ground if not for a more advanced definition we can arrive at through additional information. Although we modify our original definition in this case, it still retains the basic motivation which is to explain why human beings see things fall to the ground.

 

Though in the past we seem to have avoided self-awareness in favor of less thinking and more raw data, as science advances our access to data lessens.

 

As we begin to investigate things that fall outside of the perceptual range of our 5 senses, the amount of skill in reasoning required increases exponentially. When all we can observe are implications and indirect consequences, we must have the skill of the philosopher to be able to sort out what we see.

 

 

 

 

One could make the following argument- we can set up two different observers, A and B.

 

A sees event X happen, followed by event Y.

B sees event Y happen, followed by event X.

 

There is no reason to privilege to one observer over another- so we must accept As ordering of events and Bs ordering of events. Therefore (since the order is ambiguous), these two events cannot be causally related.

 

However, if we have superluminal propagation (in particular, if we don't have ANY limit on propagation speed for a force, etc) we can show that for ANY two events, we can arrange for A and B to see a different order.

 

This leaves us with two choices

1. give up causality entirely (no one wants this)

2. give up our assumption that A and B are on equal footing (there must exist some privileged observers)

3. give up the idea of superluminal forces.

 

Since no tests have ever shown anything to move at superluminal velocities, and no tests have ever been devised to tell the difference between two inertial observers A and B, most (if not all) scientists choose 3, and give up the idea of superluminal forces.

 

 

 

I fail to understand why you believe this- far from it. If we allow superluminal forces, we loose (not gain) explanations. We lose Maxwell's equations (no more explanations for electricity/magnetism), we lose general relativity (leaving Newtonian gravity with no explanations for the bending of light by gravity, gravitational lensing, etc), we lose a great deal of quantum field theory (no more explanations of anti-matter, etc).

-Will

 

You could privilege one observer over another using a similar argument to how objective truth is justified.

 

By this I mean we simply say that although no such person is REALLY a privileged observer, additional information would always cause a person to reinterpret their observations as part of an objective order of events. This information may or not become available to us later, but it's potential existence is enough to stop us from discounting the idea of a privileged observer...

 

Your views appear humanity centered to me - the universe does not revolve around us and what we think. We do not lose anything if we had nothing to begin with. It is irrelevant whether or not truth coincides with what someone already believes.

 

That being said, I do not believe for a second that those theories would all become useless if there was such a thing as a privileged observer. Rather, as is always the case when induction fails, they would be describing the situation under certain conditions and not others.

 

Your argument regarding the tests is a bit circular- if we reinterpret any evidence of a superluminal force as something else then of course we wouldn't have any evidence of superluminal forces. In that case, someone would have to walk up and hit us in the face with a giant sledgehammer labled superluminal force to change our minds. Something that is going to happen less and less the more that science approaches realms farther away from normal human experience.

 

Going back to the error of hu-vanity, what do our tests have to do with reality? We cannot test things that our outside of our realm of existence, and by that I mean things that we do not interact with directly. We cannot shrink ourselves to the size of a subatomic particle and "look" at what is going on as if "looking" even has meaning in such a place.

 

Instead we only see implications and indirect consequences, a problem that will probably only worsen as science advances.

[Erasmus00]

You could privilege one observer over another using a similar argument to how objective truth is justified.

 

This implies ONE observer has a monopoly on truth. i.e., the two observers are not equal. However, no test can tell these two observers apart, so we should expect physically they are equal.

 

Your views appear humanity centered to me - the universe does not revolve around us and what we think. We do not lose anything if we had nothing to begin with. It is irrelevant whether or not truth coincides with what someone already believes.

 

This is true, but we have theories that predict tremendous amounts of data. With a handful of equations, we can predict the outcomes of (nearly) every experiment we have ever done. However, if we allow superluminal forces, these theories fall apart completely. They cannot be saved, and in fact, no longer make any sense.

 

That being said, I do not believe for a second that those theories would all become useless if there was such a thing as a privileged observer. Rather, as is always the case when induction fails, they would be describing the situation under certain conditions and not others.

 

If you allow superluminal forces, general and special relativity and Maxwell's equations are flat out wrong. Don't take my word for it, pick up a book.

 

if we reinterpret any evidence of a superluminal force as something else then of course we wouldn't have any evidence of superluminal forces.

 

If superluminal forces exist, there should be all kinds of tests that transmit information faster then the speed of light. The idea of science is to try and arrange a test such that the results are unambiguous and obvious. Its difficult, but certainly do-able.

-Will

[HydrogenBond]

If one defines times as a thing, such as a potential, philosophy science would be able to converge, since it would remove the subjectivity of a nebulous variable that makes theories subject to fads. If you look at a photon of energy, it defines both wavelength and frequency. In that sense, each photon defines a measure of distance and a measure of time. This product of two parameters has a direct relationship to the energy content of that photon. So energy is one part distance potential and one part time potential. If we take away either, we don't have energy.

 

One will not get a change of state unless there is some change of energy in distance, in time, or both in distance and time. All changes of state are a function of what aspect(s) of the energy potential are used. A superluminal force would imply a change of state using only the time potential aspect of energy, and therefore does not stay in proportion to distance for normal space-time affects. This could look like the speed of light is being exceeded, since changes of state in space-time, could appear to occur at a distance, at what should require a speed that is faster than the speed of light. Or the lion's share of the potential energy is transmitted as time potential, with distance loss. The affect is often not fully casual due to loss.

[Kriminal99]

This implies ONE observer has a monopoly on truth. i.e., the two observers are not equal. However, no test can tell these two observers apart, so we should expect physically they are equal.

 

This is true, but we have theories that predict tremendous amounts of data. With a handful of equations, we can predict the outcomes of (nearly) every experiment we have ever done. However, if we allow superluminal forces, these theories fall apart completely. They cannot be saved, and in fact, no longer make any sense.

 

If you allow superluminal forces, general and special relativity and Maxwell's equations are flat out wrong. Don't take my word for it, pick up a book.

 

If superluminal forces exist, there should be all kinds of tests that transmit information faster then the speed of light. The idea of science is to try and arrange a test such that the results are unambiguous and obvious. Its difficult, but certainly do-able.

-Will

 

The human centric point of view seems to dominate our approach to science in general. If we can not observe any other properties of a quark, than a quark is completely defined by the properties we can observe.

 

At first this seems to make sense because if we can never observe it, it will never make a difference. However careful reasoning would caution us against this approach. What if one out of every 3000 times something occurs, an additional property of a quark causes a difference we wouldn't even be looking for? Or this additional property causes a difference that is difficult to logically connect to the quark because of our lack of ability to observe everything that happens like we can with simple Newtonian physics.

 

Thus it seems our approach has changed to if we can not EASILY observe any additional properties of a quark, then a quark is completely defined by the properties we have observed so far.

 

Suppose the smallest subatomic particle is made up of little fairy particles. These little fairies do a silly little dance at such high frequency that we can not observe but the most common state of the fairies, which is a subatomic particle. To make a general statement about the fairies, I will say that they are out of our realm, where realm is a range of events observable by a particular intelligent being.

 

Now these fairies adhere to natural laws of physics quite different than ours and frequently break the light speed barrier. However none of this can be observed by us and instead the fairies realize the realm which we can observe and to which all the relativistic equations apply to and describe and the lightspeed barrier governs.

 

This situation would be irrelevant to us, being completely unable to observe it, were it not for one small thing. Occasionally these dancing fairies that realize subatomic particles shoot a stray fairy magic ray at something else. and effect the fairy dance that realized another particle. This ray is not in any way observable by us, other than the effect it has on the other particle.

 

The point of this silly thought experiment is to show something about human reasoning. It is impossible for your claim that superluminal travel would invalidate relativistic equations, quantum probability, or your claim that superluminal travel would have to be testable to be true.

 

It could be the case that superluminal travel is going on all around us, between particles we could never observe, in ways that realize the realm (here realm = range of observable events relative to an intelligent being) in which we live where relativistic equations apply and almost everything we observe cannot break the speed of light.

 

In fact it seems to me that we have been shown that there is a superluminal force, but instead we come to the conclusion that reason or objective reality fails to preserve the relativistic equations which apply to everything else. And that I find amusing. I see nothing wrong with simply saying the light speed barrier applies to everything but entangled pairs.

 

A fundamental concept of inductive reasoning is that it is always possible to separate things into different groups that have different attributes and say that one rules of one group do not affect the rules of another group.

[Erasmus00]

The human centric point of view seems to dominate our approach to science in general. If we can not observe any other properties of a quark, than a quark is completely defined by the properties we can observe....Thus it seems our approach has changed to if we can not EASILY observe any additional properties of a quark, then a quark is completely defined by the properties we have observed so far.

 

I don't think anyone would make the claim that we KNOW what is needed to define a quark. However, I would make the claim that we have a model that has NEVER failed to describe quarks using only their charge, color charge, spin and mass. You see the difference?

 

Also, we actively look for violations of that model, because we'd like to further define quarks. As a society, billions of dollars are spent to make more and more observations. None of them are by any means easy.

 

Suppose the smallest subatomic particle is made up of little fairy particles....This situation would be irrelevant to us, being completely unable to observe it, were it not for one small thing. Occasionally these dancing fairies that realize subatomic particles shoot a stray fairy magic ray at something else....This ray is not in any way observable by us, other than the effect it has on the other particle.

 

The point of this silly thought experiment is to show something about human reasoning. It is impossible for your claim that superluminal travel would invalidate relativistic equations

 

It is not at all impossible. Once more you fail to understand the idea of scientific model building. Relativity starts from a few assumptions and proceeds to make DEDUCTIVE predictions. These are then tested against reality. If one of these assumptions were shown faulty the whole edifice falls. Hence, if superluminal travel were experimental realized, scientist would have to go back and figure out why all those predictions of relativity turned out to be true. We lose explanations.

 

your claim that superluminal travel would have to be testable to be true.

 

You yourself, in your thought experiment, posited that the superluminal fairy ray HAS AN EFFECT ON A PARTICLE! Therefore, it is, in principle, a testable prediction.

 

In fact it seems to me that we have been shown that there is a superluminal force... I see nothing wrong with simply saying the light speed barrier applies to everything but entangled pairs.

 

First, I'm well aware that the whole point of this is that you want determinism to hold on all scales. Even if there is superluminal communication between entangled pairs, this says nothing about determinism. You still cannot predict what you will measure when you look at a given particle.

 

Second, there is no reason to associate a causal structure to entangled pairs Correlation is not causation.

 

Finally, you make a lot of posts essentially dancing around the same points. You revisit your desire for the world to be deterministic over and over again, so you clearly have an interest in these issues. Why not pick up a few books or internet articles discussing bell's inequalities, relativity, etc and try to read some of the relevant material so that we can have a real discussion instead of talking in circles. I'd be more than happy to make recommendations.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

The common point behind my posts is that often scientists seem to disregard fundamental philosophical truths that the scientific approach to investigation is founded on. Seemingly because some of these truths are complex in nature and scientists are overly specialized. It isn't good if the person who is supposed to specialize in information instead specializes in operating the information gathering machine.

 

We are too used to every answer being presented to us in an obvious manner when we follow certain rules that science has laid out. As we go farther and science I believe we will find that our ability to advance depends more and more on our ability to understand reason.

 

Your response regarding Scientific model building has nothing to do with what I was saying as usual... I think what you fail to realize (as indicated by your repetitive Caps use on deduction) is that assumptions are where the limits of induction come into play.

 

The statement you responded to was making a specific claim - It is always possible for an assumption like "Time is always relative" to fail and be replaced with an assumption like "Time is always relative when dealing with electrons and higher". Any assumption that holds in one realm can fail in another - a fundamental property of assumption making.

 

In the hypothetical case of the metaphorical "fairy ray" is testable only in that it causes entanglement. The evidence is there, it is just a question of whether or not we know what to do with it.

 

Oh brother. Determinism has nothing to do with making active predictions.

 

Causation arises from our observing one event and a second event always happening after. So yes, correlation is not causation, but it is a major part of it. The other part is also satisfied in the entangled pair case. So it is irrelevant to bring that up in this case...

[Erasmus00]

I believe the absurdity of such comments as

 

We are too used to every answer being presented to us in an obvious manner when we follow certain rules that science has laid out.

 

is obvious. Anyone who spends time trying to learn any modern physics knows that its anything but obvious- representing the collaborative effort of many of the most innovative thinkers who have ever lived.

 

I won't bother responding again until you show an attempt to learn what you are trying to criticize. If you want to talk about how time is defined, I suggest reading about not only what we presently believe about time BUT ALSO why we believe it.

 

If you want to argue that superluminal communication is responsible for correlations in EPR type experiments I suggest you should read about how they are done, the modern theories we have to describe them, and WHY we believe what we believe about them.

 

If you want to discuss these things, discuss them- but do it in an informed way. I suggest starting here

 

http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~arvind/ph350/mermin.pdf

 

Introduction_to_special_relativity

-Will

[Kriminal99]

I believe the absurdity of such comments as

 

 

 

is obvious. Anyone who spends time trying to learn any modern physics knows that its anything but obvious- representing the collaborative effort of many of the most innovative thinkers who have ever lived.

 

I won't bother responding again until you show an attempt to learn what you are trying to criticize. If you want to talk about how time is defined, I suggest reading about not only what we presently believe about time BUT ALSO why we believe it.

 

If you want to argue that superluminal communication is responsible for correlations in EPR type experiments I suggest you should read about how they are done, the modern theories we have to describe them, and WHY we believe what we believe about them.

 

If you want to discuss these things, discuss them- but do it in an informed way. I suggest starting here

 

http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~arvind/ph350/mermin.pdf

 

Introduction_to_special_relativity

-Will

 

You haven't the slightest clue what I know or don't know, or what I have read or not read. Just because you don't understand my arguments does not mean I haven't read something.

 

The point of my arguments is that information that pertains to all human knowledge is universal and obeyed by any sub discipline that falls under that category. This is why for example every mathematical and physics related argument ties back to some philosophical paradox that has been around for at least hundreds of years. And when current issues are solved, they will also tie back to philosophical paradoxes.

 

People who don't understand the human mind aren't capable of figuring anything out correctly, and understanding ourselves and reason is not a current requirement of scientific inquiry because of our experiences with easier sciences.

 

When extremely complex reasoning is required to interpret experimental results, the kind that is typically reserved for philosophical arguments, these people simply can't hack it.

 

Extensive study of reason itself has been cast aside because we have always been able to just get answers with raw data in normal science when it was easy to observe everything. When we actually have to rely on the strength of our reasoning then suddenly our people are woefully unequipped.

 

It will never EVER fail that rules and assumptions that apply in one situation can not apply in a different one without any effect on the first. This is a fundamental truth of everything, and I have attempted to demonstrate how this is realized in any given sub-discipline. If you want to be magically surprised every time we relegate a previous "all-encompassing theory" to only certain situations and still continue to use it just as we did before, that is your problem.

 

I will leave you with a quote that addresses the fundamental problem here, which is that people involved in science are too insecure to address issues of reasoning because they don't want to give up the false impression that they are already authoritative sources of information:

 

Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one’s own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men.

- Charles Peirce, The Fixation of Belief