Reality in the context of Physics

Click here to edit subtitle

About this web site

This web site is intended to be a home for a new explanatory framework for physics. As well as a link to my writing on the topic of time and foundational physics. It will be an easily accessible, free resource for anyone who wants to know about the ideas that have already been  discussed and developed. Whether out of curiosity, an interest in their use, further development of the work, or using the ideas as a springboard for new research and development.

 .

The explanatory framework is a tool that can be used to understand how various kinds of physics model fit with the entirety of reality. It is the framework that is necessary for those various models to be compatible rather than contradictory. To give an understanding of reality that is entirely comprehensible and sensible rather than extremely bizarre. At the top of  page are the two  recent articles I have written one talking about the category error in Einste relatiby


Reality in the context of physics: An explanatory framework for physics: Bridging the pitfalls of category error and magic. Georgina Woodward Bsc Hons PGCE

10th July 2016 updating and adding minor improvements to 18th July 2015 paper

Category mistake, Wikipedia "A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the metaphor "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true." 8.

Category Error

Though the source is obscure, Einstein is often quoted as having said “ Reality is merely an illusion.” So it is, if one considers the appearance of reality to be the totality of what is real. Though is reality just the appearance of things? He is actually known to have written, in a letter to the family of a recently deceased friend, “To us believing physicists the distinction between past present and future has only the significance of a stubborn illusion.” 2. Einstein also said “The justification of the constructs, which represent "reality" for us, lies alone in their quality of making intelligible what is sensorily given.11. Einstein's utterances should be borne in mind while reading the following discussions on category error and magic. If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science.


One can, (given there is no conflict with physical events), write a sentence that has correct spelling and grammar, is complete and is untrue. The correctness and completeness of the statement does not make it conform to the external reality outside of the correctly formulated statement. Likewise mathematical completeness and mathematical correctness should not be mistaken for complete veracity of the idea the mathematics represents. Mathematical completeness and correspondence with experiment does not necessarily mean the context, I.E. meaning attached to it properly describes reality.

There is category error within the interpretation of special relativity, I.E. within the meaning attached to it, indicated by the paradoxes.

Someone is blindfolded and asked to describe what is in front of them. They are given some clues that relate to a dog of a certain breed. A correct description of the external characteristics a living dog of that certain breed is given, and the subject reaches the conclusion that there is a living dog in front of him. Then the description is tested against the picture of the same breed of dog that is in front of the test subject. Does the correspondence of description of real dog with picture of dog mean that the external reality in front of the subject, outside of the description, is a living dog?

The blind fold is representing the inability to directly perceive what is in the external reality. Information is received represented by the clues that are given. A description is produced that fits what is known. Then the description is tested and found to correspond. The question is, can a correctly written and complete description of what is thought to exist, tests of which show correspondence with what is actually out there, still be untrue? The answer is yes. The description can be self consistent, correctly written and complete but the external reality may belong to a different category than the one supposed. Real dog is supposed but picture of dog is the actual reality in the given scenario. Representing the mis-identification of emergent images for substantial objects.

Like should be compared with like. In an any experiment, whether actual or thought experiment. The method used should be equivalent for each test in order to be fair. It isn't in Einstein's description of measuring rods and clocks in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”. The results is that different things belonging to different categories of reality are measured. Differentiating Image reality from Object reality is important because it gives the source of the paradoxes that are inherent in the work and identifies the error permeating relativity theory and consequently other areas of physics.


We do not, in the English language, usually differentiate images from objects that are of the same superficial appearance but refer to them by the name of the object. ( Eg. A cat on a screen is referred to as a cat.) That lack of differentiation is not good enough for physics. Despite superficial similarity of appearance the are not equivalent.  There are some important differences between an image and source object.


With a simple lens, source object and screen set up, the image on the screen it possible to demonstrate that the image is qualitatively different from the source object. 

1.The source substantial object exists whether the image is produced or not. The cat object has an existence that is independent of the process necessary to produce the image of the cat on the screen.

The image relies upon the EM potential sensory data emitted from the source object for its presence, and hence on there having been a source from which the EM data was emitted. The EM radiation having been emitted, there is no further requirement for the object to remain as it was at the moment of emission or to continue to exist at that place in order for the image 'likeness' to be formed when that EM data is focused on the screen. The object plays no further role in image production subsequent to the emission of the EM potential sensory data, from which the image 'likeness' will possibly be formed.

2. "Take away the lens and the image ceases to be visible but the object is still visible. Images are emergent reality formed from the receipt and processing of EM potential sensory data" By emergent I mean in this context coming into existence as the result of a physical process or interaction not having independent existence of itself.


3.The cat object has the characteristics of a living thing. For example it is respiring and is sensitive to stimuli. Test the composition of the air in proximity to the image and increased Co2 consistent with exhalation will not be detected. Poke the image with a pencil and it will not respond, demonstrating sensitivity, in the manner of the cat object.


4.The image on the screen is 2 dimensional. It has no exterior and interior. The cat object is 3 dimensional. It has volume and hence an interior and exterior. It can be viewed all around and is source of all possible images of it, not merely the image of one surface aspect of its topology formed from the light focused on the screen.


5.The image is a limited fixed state emergent reality, merely the image of one surface aspect of the substantial object's topology formed from the light focused on the screen. Whereas the object is an absolute actualized foundational reality. As the speed of light is so fast, at every day speeds and distances the image seen closely resembles an aspect of the topology of the absolute, actualized object.. An absolute, source object as, with no reference frame applied, all prospective viewpoints of it are equally valid.

Further differences between images and objects: Factors that affect the potential sensory data from which Images will be formed affect the form or appearance of the output image. Constructive and destructive interference of the EM waves from which an image could be produced, affect the appearance of the image, or whether it is seen or not . These effects occur with images and sounds but not their material source objects. Factors affecting the wave transmission can affect output image, E.g. convection currents in air producing a shimmering image, gravitational fields in space producing gravitational lensing. The action of a substantial body is such that it minimizes potential energy. The action of an image is dependent upon the EM radiation,( and affects upon it ), from which it is formed.

Consider that a 6m tall building can appear to become a 1cm tall building by walking away from it and then looking back at it. Without any change in dimension of the building object itself occurring. That relativity of perception for observers at different distances from the object is taken as normal and is part of everyday life. That ubiquitous phenomenon alone is sufficient evidence that it is always images of objects that are seen, and not directly substantial objects themselves.

Consider also the relevance of projective geometry, allowing representation of perspective. Observer perspective, not just relative motion reference frame, is also an important part of Image reality formation.


Is the moon there when I'm not looking?

Key

A.. Actualized, a substantial element of reality.

Ab.. absolute, no singular reference frame applied.

Category error.. failure to correctly identify or discriminate between different kinds of element of reality belonging to the different facets of reality.

D...Definite.. certain and un-altering

EOIR...element of Image reality.

EOOR...element of Object reality, not same as objective reality.

Image reality.. emergent output reality from sensory data /measurement processing, Individual observer specific or objective via shared output or shared sensory data input.

L...Limited (partial sample)

FS...Fixed state.. a selection giving one un-altering state

MS.. Mixed state..a selection containing more than one state

M..Manifestation .. Output of sensory data processing

O...Observable

Object reality.. foundational, source reality of substantial objects and particles and potential sensory data.

Objective reality.. Multi-observer corroborated Image reality

PSD... Potential sensory data


That question fails to distinguish between the knowledge /concept of the moon, manifestation of the moon formed by an observers sensory system, input sensory data and substantial moon object.


(Ab A S EOOR)Moon =/= (Ab A PSD)Moon

Absolute Actualized Total potential sensory data in environment relating to Moon object

source Object


(Ab A S EOOR)Moon =/= (D LFS PSD)Moon

Actualized Object Definite Limited fixed state sub set of sensory data,

relating to Moon, received by observer


(Ab A S EOOR)Moon =/= (D LFS M EOIR)Moon

Actualized Object Definite limited fixed state Output manifestation of Moon

Element of Image reality


Reality Interface

When not looking there is no (D LFS PSD)Moon or (D LFS M EOIR)Moon

Sub set of sensory data Output manifestation


However there is is still (Ab A S EOOR)Moon and (Ab A PSD)Moon within Object reality.

Absolute actualized object Total potential sensory data in the environment

emitted by moon


I.e. The substantial actualized object and total sensory data in environment relating to Moon object,

able to exist without their Image reality manifestation counterpart. Likewise the concept of the Moon within minds and books exists independently of a currently observed Image manifestation. The idea of the Moon does not cease to exist when the observer closes his/her eyes.


(Ab A S EOOR)Moon and (D LFSM EOIR)Moon belong to different categories of elements of reality,

belonging to different facets of reality. This makes the question inadequate, as the category of

moon, oMoon-source object, PSDMoon-moon related sensory data or iMoon-manifestation or

PsyMoon-concept has not been specified, only an unspecific noun used.


About measurements

To proceed I will differentiate 4 kinds of measurement that are used in On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
1. The measurement protocol prior to viewing the result involves direct interaction with a substantial object or particle that is the subject of measurement. I will call that object measurement.


2.The measurement protocol prior to viewing the result does not involve interaction with a substantial object that is the subject of measurement but does involve an image/manifestation. I will call that image measurement.


3.The viewing of a measurement indicated by a measuring device object at the observer location (or very close proximity). This I will call proximal- measurement

4. The viewing of an image of a measurement upon an image of a measuring device (the source of which is distant from the observer.)This I will call distal- measurement.


Measurements are not all equivalent by virtue of being measurement. They are not one category. Each involves certain relation to substantial objects or images.
These different methods are allowing comparison only of what is seen, observer's output image realities, and not comparison of what substantially exists. Only observed proximal object measurements can be assumed equivalent to the substantial object's form. That context allows the barn pole type paradoxes to be intuitive. The order in which the processes of measuring and image production are carried out matters. The processes are non-commutative.


ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 1.

See under 2.On the relativity of lengths and times, the two operations (a) and (b).

"(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest." My emphasis.

Quote: "In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a)—we will call it "the length of the rod in the moving system"—must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod."

In scenario (a) it is the substantial object rod that is measured by superimposing measuring rod upon measured object, and the observer's image reality that is formed comes from observing that superimposition of the measuring rod on the measured rod.
Quote" (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod."The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system."......

Quote "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l." In this scenario the observer is not measuring the substantial object itself. He is receiving and processing EM radiation emitted or reflected from the to be measured rod object. That is processed into an image. It is where the image starts and ends at a time that is simultaneous for him that is determined by this method.

This isn't comparing like with like. In (a) an object is measured and that measurement is observed; in (b) a manifestation (emergent image) is measured. Einstein writes "Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position". Was it true that "Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal"? I think he is mistaken because the assumption he mentions requires that it is the substantial body that is compared in both operations but method (b) does not allow direct measurement of the object. There is now a category error because both (a) result and (b) result are assumed to have come from measurement of the same category of rod. Not in operation (a) an object, and in operation (b) an image.

These processes occurring in (a) and (b) I.E. measurement and image production are non commutative. The order in which they are carried out matters. They can not be considered equivalent methods of measurement.
If they are considered equivalent methods of measurement and the results considered to be measurements of the same thing, a category error occurs. They are not measurements of the same thing. (a) gives an observed measurement of a substantial object and (b) gives a measurement of an observed image.


Procedure (a) measurement protocol involves interaction with the object itself by the placing of the substantial measuring rod upon the substantial rod subject itself. That has to be done before EM data from the ensemble is formed into an image reality allowing the result to be known. There is a causal sequence of events that gives the result. The measurement result is created by the juxtaposition of measuring rod object and other rod object. It comes to be known by the production of the image reality.

Procedure (b) the image reality is formed before measurement . Sensory data arriving together, from the selection made at the selected time, is formed into the output image of the seen length. The spatial positions ("points") corresponding to seen front and seen back are noted and then distance between measured with measuring rod. The length is created from the way in which the sensory data is received and processed and it is the length corresponding to the length of the seen manifestation, not object, that is measured. This is a different non equivalent causal sequence of events. The procedures for producing the two measurements are not equivalent. Even without agreement on this there is progress.


To understand the cause of the paradoxes it is only necessary to recognize that it is emergent image manifestations that are being seen and not substantial objects, the fixed rod is only the source object it is not the output of the sensory data processing. It is not equivalent to the emergent image manifestations. The image that is seen is formed from potential sensory data arriving together at the observer and being processed into an output. It can not be assumed that the image is necessarily isomorphic to the substantial object. As the image is only an aspect of the topology as it is formed from only the sensory data that is received at a particular location. Proximal object measurement gives an output with close resemblance to an aspect of the topology of the object, given that the optical system is not causing perturbation. With close proximity looking towards the object the EM radiation emitted together from the object is received together by the observer. However it does not follow that the same is true for image measurement using an image produced fro EM emitted fro a distant source object. Reference frame of the observer also matters.

The substantial objects form is due to the relations of the atoms that are its substance. The form of the image depends upon which EM radiation is intercepted and processed together into the output; whether there has been perturbation of the EM radiation en route and the optical or radio system used to convert the EM radiation input into visible output. The form of the image is far more mutable than the substantial objects form that is constrained by its substantial nature. That is the atomic forces and chemical bonds that hold it together as an object. An extreme examples is image form caused by gravitational lensing. The form of the galaxy image is not isomorphic to the form of the substantial galaxy that was the source of the EM radiation. Also for EM radiation that has propagated a very long distance it is not necessary that the source object still has existence either in the form observed or at all. The image viewed is not the object but output from relic EM radiation potential sensory data. The example clearly shows that there should be differentiation of image outputs from Source objects and not the assumption that there is equivalence .

Summary

The differences between substantial objects and images are not trivial. Though they may bear the same object name they are not equivalent. The category error within relativity is not differentiating between externally existing objects, consisting of atoms and particles, and images being perceived ( insubstantial manifestations, outputs of sensory data processing).


The Grandfather paradox

Realizing that different observers experience same events at different times and in different ways led Einstein to consider that events exist spread within a space-time continuum. This reasoning leads to the Grandfather paradox. The Grandfather paradox seems to be based upon that assumption that non simultaneity of events requires substantial object persistence rather than just persistence of the potential sensory data from which to construct image reality present experience. It confuses Image reality (emergent output reality from sensory data processing ) with Object reality (substantial being -Independent of observation). It is therefore based upon a category error.

That there is non simultaneity of experienced events should not be used to suppose that the object sources of the potential sensory data received must remain unchanged. As the image reality output depends only upon the receipt of potential sensory data already emitted into the environment. The pool of EM data allows different observers to receive and process that data in different ways according to location and motion relative to the sensory data. The no longer substantially existing, is unambiguously, actually different from that which substantially exists and that which has not existed Sensory data persists in the environment receivable by different observers at same and different times, giving non simultaneity of events. It is not substantial events themselves that persist.

An absolute (as no reference frame applied), actualized element of Object reality is not equivalent to a definite (as reference frame, viewpoint, applied), limited fixed state ( as there has been selection of information giving a partial view of apparent topology) manifestation ;an out put of sensory data processing, an element of Image reality.

To confuse them as the same thing is a category error.


At speeds that are not a significant fraction of the speed of light and local distances the image seen closely resembles an aspect of the topology of the absolute, actualized object. Absolute, as no reference frame applied, so all prospective viewpoints of it are equally valid.


Related to Reality Interface

Ab A S EOOR Ab A PSD R (EOOR) D LFS PSD R(EOOR) D LFS M EOIR

Source object total sensory data emitted data selected by observer manifestation


The manifestation has a singular limited fixed state, produced from the sub set of sensory data received rather than many possibilities of the absolute object and pre-selection sensory data.


(Ab A EOOR)Grandpa =/= (D LFS M EOIR)Grandpa

Substantial Object Manifestation


That the outputs are mere insubstantial manifestations, not solid substantial objects should be borne in mind when considering the Barn Pole type paradoxes. Close to the speed of light the sub set of sensory data intercepted causes distortion of the theoretical output (ignoring limitations of sensors and visual systems likely to blur the output rather than give clear resolution of images).


About time

The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality. Though it contains Mc Taggart's “A series of time”, past present and future, it does not include “B series time” 10. which is passage of time or change along a sequence spanning earlier to later. Used alone Space-time allows the possibility of time travel and associated paradoxes, is a completely deterministic static model that denies free will and does not allow causality due to non simultaneity of events.


Kinds of time

There are two different kinds of time that are of prime importance the passage of time independent of observation, Uni-temporal "time", and the time that is experienced by an observer.

1] There is a difference between Newtonian absolute time and Uni-temporal "time". In agreement with J.C.N. Smith (7.), the time I call uni-temporal is a unique pattern of the entire (Object) universe, each time corresponds to a different unique pattern. It might be said in this regard there is no time that is separate from the substantial configuration and the passage of time is only temporal expression of the sequence of wholly spatial configurations. It is the 'moment' between what has substantially existed and what does not yet exist, but not between observed past and future as the content of the present depends upon the sensory data received and processed (varying for each observer ) not what exists at uni- temporal-Now, external to the subjective experience.


2]The observers present is formed from the sensory data received and processed, and that output seen, The sequence of presents is a kind of passage of time, emergent manifest passage of time. It is not synchronized with the external reality, so also not synchronized with uni-temporal passage of time. There is inbuilt delay that increases with distance from the site of EMR emission from the source object and effects of relative reference frames of observer and observed.

Both kinds of time can be described as sequences of configurations. Uni-temporal passage of time is the sequence of configurations of the Object universe. Emergent passage of time is the sequence of outputs of the observer's sensory data processing. Or is the sequence of outputs of the inorganic reality interface that has received information input. Giving experience of an ever changing present. Time emergent from the processing of sensory data allows non simultaneity of events and uni-temporal passage of time gives an absolute temporal background for atomic and subatomic events.

If two clocks with excellent timekeeping at position A are synchronized by two observers also at that position and then by slow transport the clocks are separated; though to each observer at each new position the distant clock appears to be telling a different time from his own (distal measurement giving image reality output) they remain synchronized in Object reality. Both substantial object clocks at a particular proximal time [observed on the clock, (isomorphic to the measurement by the substantial measuring device)], are a part of the same pattern in the sequence of patterns of the Object universe (Configuration of all substantial objects and particles ) in which the positions on the clock faces of the hands of the two clocks ( made of atoms) are isomorphic to each other, in Object reality.

It is when the output experience of sensory data receipt and processing, including distal measurement of time, is introduced that non simultaneity becomes apparent. The distal measurement relies upon sensory data transmission, receipt and processing; which prevents the output observed from being isomorphic to the measurement now showing on the substantial object clock (proximal measurement). The relative motion of the observer or observed also affects the way in which the sensory data is received and so the appearance of the output. It is the sensory data received and output of sensory data processing that gives the apparent time, an image reality. Image reality and object reality are not equivalent and are not synchronized. 


It is important to realize that the measurement is an output of sensory data processing. It is a difference in the appearance of the passage of time and not a difference of "time itself", as time itself is a superfluous concept. The slowing of clocks under acceleration or gravitational field, I have considered likely to be due to inertia rather than parts of the (Object) universe existing at different times, and so a further category of 'clock time' may be required. Likewise processing of information by the brain can alter the timing of events within the output compared to the timing of data receipt, in contrast to a simple device acting as the reality interface. So(variable) psychological time can also be considered (See David Eagleman's FQXi talk.6.)


Causality promotes and is consequent from the sequence of the configurations of the Object universe. Causality is less clear in emergent image reality of observer's as there is non simultaneity of ( experienced ) events. That means that different observers can see events occur in different orders due to the way in which the sensory data was obtained. They may ascribe the chain of cause and effect to be consistent with the order in which they saw the images or heard the biologically generated output sounds.


A] A window is smashed, alarm sounds, distant dog barks. It takes longer for dog sensory data to arrive than window sensory data. Observer 'A' says the dog heard the window break and that is why he is barking.


B] Dog next to observer 'B' barks and then in the distance a window is heard to smash and an alarm sound. Takes longer for window sensory data to arrive than dog bark data.'B' says dog must have heard the intruder before the window was broken and that's why he barked. For a distant observer that is not always how it appears to be, even though cause does always precede effect in the foundational reality that is the source of the sensory data that the distant observer receives.


C] A glass shattered by a high frequency note might be seen to shatter before the sound cause is heard. Though it might be necessary to record sound and picture using recording devices and then play them back slowed down, as the brain can, with a small enough time interval, synchronize the differently timed inputs into a synchronized output (See David Eagleman's FQXi talk 6.).


D] Similarly a plane that disintegrates due to an explosion could be seen by a distant observer to fall apart before noise, by which an explosion is identified, is heard. It is likely that the associative cortex of the brain that identifies meaning within the sensory data uses arrival time to give a coherent causal story, which may differ from the causality that produced the sensory data.


The light velocity is always the same as measured by the observer of it and pertains to the observer's Image reality, the output generated from the received EM radiation.


Image reality output depends upon what sensory data is received together forming the apparent present and apparent synchronicity of events within that present. Generally potential sensory data received together is processed into same output irrespective of time taken for the data to arrive. Giving a space-time output IE containing temporal spread. (Although for an organism's sensory system acting as the reality interface there may be some adjustment between input and output affecting apparent synchronicity- See David Eagleman's FQXi talk 6.). As what potential data is received varies for different observer positions and reference frames so does the experienced present and experienced synchronicity of events.


Two futures


One is the not yet received sensory data that already exists in the environment. In this explanatory model that is called the pre-written future. The data was produced when there was interaction between the actualised objects or fermion particles and the environmental medium/a in which they exist. This could be emission or reflection of EM waves or the production of pressure waves which will be interpreted as sound or release into the environment of other data such as chemicals in the air that can be detected by artificial detector or organism. The time between production and receipt will depend on the type of data, distance from source and reference frame. This gives Einsteinian relativity and non simultaneity. This may have formerly been thought of as being the past since the event producing the data has already occurred unobserved. However in this model the past is that which has been experienced as the present and may be stored in memory, or already exists in records.


The other future is open and non existent. The imagined nothingness prior to actualisation. That is called the unwritten future in this explanatory model. This future is necessary to allow partial non determinism and free will. It can be imagined as what will be but isn't. As it does not exist there can be no time travel into that future. Likewise as the past does not exist except in records and memory there can be no time travel to the past. This understanding of time overcomes the twins and grandfather paradoxes. The time dimension only applies to the electromagnetic and other sensory data in the environment not existing actualisations outside of the fully simultaneous uni-temporal-Now.

What exists unobserved has an arrangement and that arrangement consists of scales, masses, separations, orientations, which give the forces that will act to give the next arrangement. So it is the former arrangement becoming the next in sequence. This is the traditional direction of the arrow of time. What was to what is. That has traditionally called past to present but past has a different meaning within this explanatory model, as can be seen on the diagram. The past only exists as records including memory in this model. This applies to what is happening unobserved and so is non relativistic. Not what is observed, which is prone to non simultaneity and even different orders of observed events for different observers. It gives the “preferred foliation” necessary for QM models.

This is not fully determined by former arrangement of a structure as there will be times when balance points occur and the “direction” in which the outcome proceeds will be due to the slightest perturbation from the internal or external environment. This might be said to be the locations where “God plays dice”, in an otherwise deterministic unobserved reality. The sequence of former arrangements of the Object universe are giving the actualisations and the open future is only imaginary. Interaction of the actualisations with the environment are giving the data which is the pre-written future which will become the observed, detected or experienced present-now.


The arrows of time

There are two imaginary arrows of time. The one that is the sequence of change of the Object universe from oldest to youngest iteration. Only the youngest exists. The youngest in the sequence of configurations being where change happens, the causality front. This one is the actual changes of the relations between matter (and particles) of the Object universe giving new configurations which is an irreversible arrow of time.


The other imaginary arrow is the experienced arrow if time which is at its most basic the order of receipt of sensory data from which experience is fabricated, though the brain does adjust the timing of the outputs from the accumulated data to give consistent causality stories. ( As described by David Eagleman. 6.) If the direction of time, with respect to observation, is thought about it is the pre-written future that is becoming the present and then becoming the past in records and memory. Which is the opposite direction to the direction in which time is thought to progress and the arrow of time has usually been imagined. This arrow is theoretically reversible if the speed of the observer exceeds the speed of production of the sensory data. An experiment using sound and microphone bullets as proof of principle can be considered. With data receipt in reverse the output experienced would be reversed. Of course this is not traveling back in time as the reversal experience happens within the uni-temporal Object universe with unchanging passage of time.


The need for an explanatory framework for physics

The facts

1. a) Einstein’s relativity works to describe what will be observed. b) Its a mathematically

complete theory. c) It corresponds with experimental results.

2. a) QM works mathematically. b) It corresponds with great accuracy to experimental results.

3. Together they seem to account for the phenomena of physics at all scales. (Although they

are seemingly incompatible.)


The problems

1. Einstein’s relativity is completely deterministic but QM relies upon probabilities and so is

non deterministic.

2. QM and classical physics including relativity appear to work at different scales.

3. How the transition occurs has been unclear.

4. Classical physics can’t explain; the probabilistic physiological effect of radiation, the

photoelectric effect, line spectra, black body radiation, wave properties of the electron. QM

can.

5. Gravity can’t be explained at the quantum scale.

6. There are a number of paradoxes associated with relativity. Used alone Space-time allows the possibility of time travel and associated paradoxes. It does have an unambiguous foundational sequential order that provides causality but with Lorentzian manifold space-times there exists a hierarchy of causality conditions including Space-times with closed time-like curves.

7. There’s a measurement problem at the quantum scale. This is how selection of a state by

nature prior to detection occurs. Addressed in “An examination of measurement relevant to entanglement and ontology: Answers to some long standing questions.” Georgina Woodward July 2016. 20.

8. There seems to be an arrow of time that is inexplicable by Einstein’s relativity or QM.

9. Relativity and QM appear contradictory.

10. Complete determinism is at odds with; concepts of choice, free will, evolution of the ability

to think and make decisions and choices, functional morality, altruism and selection through

competition. As it implies that all responses and outcomes are predetermined. Therefore fully

automatic, despite the strong feeling that this is not so.

11. Definite alternatives and never super positions are observed. The what, where and how it

is decided what an observer shall see needs explanation. The Copenhagen interpretation

requires a classical domain that will only allow one particular outcome. Many Worlds has

branching of the wave function but an observer who is only aware of one branch. Neither

model is wholly satisfactory


Word List and definitions.


These definitions are given to avoid ambiguity of meaning which can cause the explanatory framework to be misunderstood. It can be used as a reference to check that the same meaning of the word is being used and applied.

In order for this explanatory framework to work in modeling reality, answering questions and overcoming paradoxes it is necessary that the terms are understood and applied only as defined for use in this context.

Alternative definitions can not be substituted or added, even though they may be perfectly acceptable meanings of the terms in other situations and may be widely accepted to have those meanings. Unless the meaning and its function is entirely unaltered by that substitution. Where the meaning being used is consistent with an English dictionary definition that is often given. Where a dictionary definition has not been given it is important that such a definition is not substituted or used alongside the definition given unless care is taken to ensure the meaning or function is not altered in doing so.


Actualization
1.That which has become actual or real independently of observation. That which has existence unobserved and unobservable, independent of all observer's perspectives and potential observer perspectives . 2.The material/substance/objects/media within space. That which is within/ makes up the Source (object) reality


Causality front

Another name for uni-temporal Now. Useful when discussing causality within space-time. An event that is observed is not at the causality front as it takes time for data to reach and be interpreted by an observer. The delay depending upon distance from the interacting objects. It is the simultaneous changing of the iteration of the universe according to the forces , gradients and potential differences acting upon the arrangement of objects to allow, constrain or prevent changes, giving a new pattern formation or reiteration of existing pattern.


Change

1.to make or become different; alter. 2. To replace or exchange for another: to change ones name 3, to transform or convert or to be transformed or converted.

The new Collins concise dictionary of the English language.


(Spatial change.)

This term is used to refer to a change of spatial position or location. It could refer to a translation, rotation , scaling transformation or combination of such operations.


Data pool

The totality of potential sensory data within the uni-temporal environment.

As we are primarily visual creatures so this is used to referring mostly to EM waves, visible and detectable with artificial devices. Though it can also include sound waves, ultra and infra sound, chemicals in the air, chemical dissolved in water, electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields. Detectable by the human organism, other biological organisms, artificial devices, sensitive materials.

D.P =Data Pool

Potential sensory data.. That data which is potentially accessible to the senses of biological organisms directly or via technology. E.M data but also sound waves, chemicals in air and liquid, magnetic data. Data passes into the pool from object reality eg by reflection or emission of EM, sound waves or chemicals from objects. ( black arrows on diagram.) It is a sub set of object reality. The data is concretely real but can not be observed except through the Manifestation of it in an image reality.


Energy

Change of spatial position of an object or objects , particle or particles , material, substance or medium in source reality, which may or may not have related observed manifestation. Or potential for such change. Energy of sufficient magnitude to be observed can be observed as the work it performs.

Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy.

External reality

That which exists externally to the observer but is not the space-time manifestation produced by the observer. Used instead of source reality when talking about its relationship to the observer.


Unwritten future/open future
1.That which has not yet happened in unobserved reality but will. 2. Imaginary future. 3.Potential reality.


Imaginary historical time line

An imaginary line along which the former iterations of the object universe can be imagined. A line threaded through the iterations would represent the path of an object has taken through space. The former iterations do not exist, they are not an existent past- but can be imagined.


Iteration

Repeatedly solving an equation to obtain a result using the result from the previous calculation, is called 'iteration'. From iterate to say or do again, repeat. What comes next, the next Actualisation, is the result from all of the processes (constrained and allowed by the existing variables and parameters in the uni-temporal space) [akin to the calculation] using what exists (as the input/ingredients), which is the previous resultant Actualisation.


Manifestation
1.The output of an artificial detector or sensitive material when data is input. eg. Photograph , sound recording , click of Geiger counter.

2.That which is seen /experienced by an observer and is considered by that observer to exist or to have originated externally to him/herself. Either formed through input and processing of sensory data from outside of the observer, or internally generated, or both.

M= Manifestation observed. Image reality.

This is the representation produced from the data intercepted. It could be the conscious experience of a higher organism. Or film image produced by a camera or other type of representation produced by an instrument that recieves data and gives an output using the input . The observed present which is a relative space-time output reality. Only exists because of observer object reality interaction. ( May be related to ideas of decoherence of wave function in QM.)


Past, present and (prewritten) future
These are terms relating to the manifestation of present-now. Past, a former present-now ;future a yet to be present-now (See Pre-written future below.) Terms related to space-time both experienced and mathematical. Terms that reflect the experience of the observer from his particular perspective. Which depends upon reference frame and distance from the origin of the data intercepted.

Present/ present-now /here-now /"now";
All terms for the observed manifestation formed by an observer from received sensory data and formed through internal processing into a representation of external reality. Either referring to just the appearance in space (present), in space-time(present-now/ here-now), or in time("now").

This may be events occurring externally to the observer or reported to him/her in real time such as a live TV show. The temporal delay between the recording of the event and the observation of the show will not alter the perception of it as occurring "now".

Past
a former present-now manifestation seen by the observer in question, which has been superseded. A former present-now of other observers reported to the observer in question and so known to have happened. (See records)

Pre-written future (written future)

That data existing within the uni-temporal environment that will be,, but has not yet been, intercepted by an observer and formed into a manifestaion experienced as present- now


Observation

As observation is recording or acknowledgment of the manifestation of reality observed or experienced. Formed from data originating at the actualized reality in the object universe. The manifestation comes into being and is then observed but the actualization already was but unknown. The actualization has to pre-exist the manifestation in order to be the source of the data received and used to form the manifestation.


Output (Image) reality
The manifestation/s output formed by an observer whether a biological organism or artificial detector, or sensitive material. Formed from the receipt of input converted into different output.


The universe does not come into existence from many co-existing possibilities when viewed by an observer but the manifestation is created from environmental data emitted or reflected from the -prior- actualization of the Object Universe and received and processed by the observer.


Potential
1.adj. possible but not yet actual, capable of becoming, latent 2.verb expressing possibility 3. latent but unrealized ability. Collins Concise dictionary of the English language.

adj. capable of becoming or of being used or of being developed. noun. an ability or capacity for development or use. The New Zealand Oxford paperback dictionary.


Real

adj. 1. Existing or occurring in the physical world, not imaginary , fictitious or theoretical; actual 2. True, actual not false. 3. deserving of the name; rightly so called: a real friend. 4. not artificial or simulated; genuine: real fur. 5.Philosophy. existent or relating to actual existence rather than non existence, existing.
The new Collins concise dictionary of the English language.


Reality

1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be. 2. something that is real. 3.the state of being real. 4.philosophy. a) awareness b) the totality of facts. 5.in reality. actually, in fact.

The new Collins concise dictionary of the English language.


-Reality: the quality of being real.: resemblance to an original. 2. All that is real, the real world as opposed to fantasy.
NZ Oxford English dictionary


The reality Interface.

In this explanatory framework the reality interface is an object, system, material, device or organism's sensory system that converts received EM radiation or other potential sensory data input that is unobserved to different observed/experienced or observable/experience-able output. An interface between the underlying (source) reality and perception. Imposing orientation and relative reference frame. It gives a limited fixed state output, that pertains to the information input from the environment.

The Prime reality interface

The human ( or higher sentient organism's) sensory system and central nervous system that converts received sensory data input into observed /experienced output reality.


Records
Records clearly are not the past itself but storage of some characteristics /facts/ features of a former observed manifestations. Prone to influence of subjective opinion, bias , deliberate or accidental falsification, loss, alteration, or exclusion of data. To avoid ambiguity it is best not to refer to any of this as the past.
That which exists within records both external to the observer such as data stored on disc, tape , vinyl, mp3, paper etc or internal memory of the former observer of it.

R= Records. Physical records of all kinds.

I.R.= Internal Records ie. Memories. Storage of information within the biological organism through growth and connection of neurons. Subjective past. Sub set of R.


Representation

Representation: 1.the act or an instance of representing or the state of being represented.(re-present)vb. to present again. 2. Anything that represents such as a verbal or pictoral portrait.3.anything that is represented such as an image brought clearly to mind. The Collins Concise dictionary of the English language.

Representation: n. representing or being represented 2. something that represents another eg a picture or diagram. The New Zealand Oxford paperback dictionary.

Source (Object ) reality

It is possible to comprehend the existence of a foundational reality separate from experience, which although it can not be experienced can be theoretically and logically modeled. That is a model of what exists as substantial reality. Substantial ; 6. real ,actual , true; 7.relating to the basic or fundamental substance or aspects of a thing (The new Collins concise dictionary of the English language)Rather than interpretation or simulation or image of reality formed from sensory input and internal processing by the brain, artificial device or reaction of a sensitive material or substance. The existing source reality and the observed output reality, are not identical .They can be separated as concepts in the mind and therefore also within a theoretical model to aid comprehension of physics.


1.The source or object reality is: The actualization of the universe. 2.That which exists independently of the manifestations seen by observers and produced from detections by artificial devices. 3. The origin of sensory data and potential sensory data which is emitted or reflected from it. It includes the source objects for the data in the environment, the data and its medium of transmission, and the observers, living and artificial.


Sequential

Another word for sequent. Sequent:adj.1.following in order or succession .2. Following as a result. 3.Something that follows. The Collins concise dictionary of the English language.


time dimension

The 4th dimension of space-time. The scalar dimension of time or ict that is used together with 3 spatial vector dimensions. A dimension that models the temporal delay of EM affecting the manifestation of reality observed by an observer receiving such delayed data.


Uni-temporal Now

Current time when referring to the temporally homogeneous spatial arrangement of the Object (reality) Universe under consideration shall be called Uni- temporal, or Objective, Now to distinguish it from the present. It spans the whole Object Universe and can be regarded as a single co-existing spatial arrangement and distribution of objects in space, not space-time. The current and only existentially real configuration of objects, forming a part of a sequence or continuum of such arrangements (depending on how change is regarded).

Future (unwritten)

Events that have not and are not occurring in Object reality, therefore a non existent 'realm' , not a part of reality.

The diagrams provided together with the word list with definitions should be sufficient to allow the explanatory framework to be understood and used within physics. It is most important that physicists know which facet of reality they are working with and whether relativity or simultaneity should apply.

RICP Diagram 1.


RICP Diagram 1. is an older diagram representing the explanatory framework for physics.

Note that the future outside of Object reality is designated unwritten open. This is distinct from the pre-written futures contained within the data pool. EM data that is possibly encoding, yet to be experienced, present experience of observers. It also shows that the object reality past consists of memories and records. Distinct from events encoded in EM potential sensory data. Events already experienced by one observer thus deemed by him as past -but that might yet be experienced by another.

It can also be seen that uni-temporal -now or the existent configuration of the Object universe is the causality front, where possibility and potential become the physics that happens. Object reality has no time dimension but the sequence of configurations can be imagined spread along an imaginary time line. Action over time can be depicted diagrammatically but it must be remembered that temporal component does not have metaphysical existence within this framework. Current time when referring to the temporally homogeneous spatial arrangement of the Object (reality) is uni-temporal-Now, the content and configuration of which preceeds the image reality representation of it. Called Uni- temporal-Now to distinguish it from the (observed ) present. It spans the whole Object Universe and can be regarded as a single co-existing spatial arrangement and distribution of objects in space, not space-time. The current and only existentially real configuration of objects, forming a part of a sequence

or continuum of such arrangements (depending on how change is regarded).

Object reality is the actual ever changing position and arrangement of objects particles and waves relative not to any single observer but to the spatial positions of all other constituents of the temporally homogeneous object universe. Past present and future are not a part of this reality because: Old forms and arrangements are replaced by new forms and arrangements, the future does not have existence (though there is potential image reality within the wave and chemical data that exists in the environment.), the present is composed of temporally distorted image representations of former arrangements of objects and events, within the temporally homogeneous current object reality Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy. Energy is never destroyed.12. So change is continual and inevitable. Even if a particular structure or particle does not change form or position in local space it will still change its universal position and therefore continues to undergo spatial change. Every change leads to further change giving the incessantly rearranging soup of causation within temporally homogeneous object reality space.


Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy. Energy is never destroyed.12. So change is continual and inevitable. Even if a particular structure or particle does not change form or position in local space it will still change its universal position and therefore continues to undergo spatial change. Every change leads to further change giving the incessantly rearranging soup of causation within temporally homogeneous object reality space.


RICP Diagram 2. More clearly illustrates the truly emergent nature of image reality. That image reality is not a part of Object reality without being produced from the EM or other sensory data by means of a reality interface device or organism's sensory system. Object and image reality are thus shown clearly as different categories of reality. Though it is necessary that the ontic facilitation of image reality be contained within object reality. That means for example the em radiation interaction with screen or retina are substantially real events in object reality. However the meaning derived from the image input does not have substantial existence in object reality. It is in this way possible to have a 'known' space-time visible universe contained within the space only object universe as the former is an epistemic construct and not substantially real. This can be likened to the fantasy world contained within a book . The dimensions of the story world far exceeding the dimensions of the substantial book.



RICP Diagrm 2.



The Andromeda paradox

The Andromeda paradox is understood simply by realizing there is a significant category difference between experienced events and events in which substantial elements of reality interact, I.E. source events and potential sensory data from which Image reality manifestations can be formed.

EOOR interactions occur in Object reality that is uni-temporal (same time everywhere) and can be considered the causality front. (Not yet received environmental potential sensory data can be named the pre-written future, not to indicate complete determinism within physics, but that the data to form observable manifestations exists prior to their experience. The Object reality or source reality, and Image reality experienced present manifestation are not synchronized. When an event is observed via its manifestations is variable, but when an event happens in the source Object reality is definite, and uni-temporal as that event having happened in Object reality is true for all locations. The observer walking towards Andromeda would receive the potential sensory data sooner than an Earth bound observer. So even though no invasion data is yet received as Andromeda is too far away it can be said that for the walking observer the potential sensory data emitted from the invasion events on Andromeda are nearer to him than the Earth bound observer. This does not however mean the source event occurred sooner. The source event occurs only once and the time of that occurrence (iteration of the Object universe within the imaginary past sequence of iterations is unique and unchangeable).


On whether there are spatial relation between objects at different times

The question of whether there are spatial relation between objects at different times presumes that there can be Objects at different times. That is so for a space-time model such as Block time. A uni-temporal Object universe precludes that possibility. There is only one extant time, uni-temporal -Now. That does not mean that Objects can not be affected by the former action of other objects, and calculations made. Such as a boat rocked now by the wake of a passing of a boat then.
The question also requires differentiation of Image from Object reality because there can be spatial relations between parts of an image that pertain to different times. The distances shown in the image could be measured 'on the ground', or estimated for astronomic images, giving the distance between corresponding Source Objects, even though the EM radiation from which the different parts of the image is formed was not produced during the same configuration of the Object universe, I.E. not at the same time. The image is real but also a distortion of what has existed.

The true, absolute relations are those between substantial objects within the same configuration of the Object universe. Everything is in motion so the object universe is continually changing, some relations between objects will persist within uni-temporal -Now and others be extinguished. Relations within uni-temporal -Now are extant, true relations.

That there is non simultaneity of experienced events should not be used to suppose that the object sources of the potential sensory data received must remain unchanged. As the image reality output depends only upon the receipt of potential sensory data already emitted into the environment. The pool of EM data allows different observers to receive and process that data in different ways according to location and motion relative to the sensory data within the environment.

Potential sensory data pertaining to an event received and processed into the present of one observer and already past experience of another may yet be -to be received- by a more distant observer and is in that regard his pre-written future.

There is no clear delineation between the past, present and future across different observer's output Image reality (from processing of received EM radiation). There is non simultaneity of events because different sensory data is -received and processed together- by different observers, into the individual reality that is observed by each. Potential sensory data pertaining to an event received and processed into the present of one observer and already past experience of another may yet be -to be received- by a more distant observer and is in that regard his pre-written future. However this is comparison of emergent Image realities, what is seen. It does not require that there is corresponding extant Object reality. There is no past and no future in a uni-temporal object reality only what exists (independent of observation). The EM radiation that may become an observer's experienced present ( pre-written future) is just EM radiation in Object reality and not the time, events and objects it can be processed into by an observer. In that foundational reality 'that which has formerly been (distinct from the Image Reality past)', no longer existing, is unambiguously, actually different from that which substantially exists and that which has not existed

The information contained within the Data pool of potential image realities is distinct from the Object reality of substantial source objects now existing; that co-exist within Object reality with the EM radiation distributed within the environment. 
The EM potential sensory data is not the substantial past, present and future; only the potential to form Image realities of former objects and events. There is no need to suppose there is a space-time continuum in which substantial realities persist in form and configurations through out all time. The object sources can change, move or cease to exist after the EM radiation is emitted that persists in the environment by which former arrangements, forms and events will be experienced

Any experiment involving observation( using the sense of sight or sound or a device to be proxy for that visual or auditory system such as a camera) is using the output of sensory data collection and processing. That might be emergent sound or images in the case of an organism being the observer or some other output in the case of a device collecting the sensory data. There may be awareness of or evidence for apparent interactions of those images (which is not the same phenomenon as interaction of material objects). Now think barn pole or bug rivet paradox. It is emergent image realities that are being considered not the material objects that are sources of the electromagnetic input, overcoming the paradoxes.



New RICP Diagram 4.


Diagram 4. shows 3 levels of image reality from simple image production, to interpretation and perception, to model production from image inputs. Hopefully it is helpful. It seems to me relativity, dealing with how objects are seen by observers in different reference frames and the relativity of perception of events, has the EMR of the data pool of Object reality as input and the level 2 image reality as output. Relevant to the negation of the paradoxes and space-time continuum model.


Level 3 Image reality: Amalgamation of many images produced over time and at different times in different locations. E.g.Google Street View. The output of amalgamation is a composite image of the World (or universe) as it has never existed and never will, in the form shown in the image, incorporating temporal spread, and temporal spread anomalies. Despite apparent similarities it is not isomorphic to the existing Object reality. The epistemic content of the image is a separate emergent level of image reality to the ontic image displayed on a computer screen or paper print out, which can then be observed as a level 2 (technology mediated) experience of a level 3 output. Further removed from direct level 2 experience of the World or visible universe.
Level 2 Image reality: The experienced present contains limited fixed state images of objects 2 x 2D only 'rendered' 3D in appearance, distinct from the absolute forms of objects in Object reality. Also the temporal spread within the images does not exist within any configuration of the Object universe. Relativity of simultaneity and relativity of observed forms belong to this realm , though the source is the EMR potential sensory data within Object reality. The distribution of the potential sensory data is ontic but what that data is processed into, what it appears to show, is not.



Key

A.. Actualized, a substantial element of reality.

Ab.. absolute, no singular reference frame applied.

Category error.. failure to correctly identify or discriminate between different kinds of element of reality belonging to the different facets of reality.

D...Definite..,certain and un-altering

EOIR.. element of Image reality.

EOOR.. element of Object reality, not same as objective reality.

Image reality.. emergent output reality from sensory data /measurement processing, Individual observer specific or objective via shared output or shared sensory data input.

L.. Limited (partial sample)

FS ...Fixed state.. a selection giving one un-altering state

MS.. Mixed state..a selection containing more than one state

M...Manifestation .. Output of sensory data processing

O Observable

Object reality.. foundational, source reality of substantial objects and particles and potential sensory data.

Objective reality.. Multi-observer corroborated Image reality

PSD.. Potential sensory data

R..related to

Reality interface..Interface between object reality and image reality where input sensory data is converted to output manifestations.

The Prime reality Interface is the human sensory system inc. CNS. That converts input sensory data from Object reality into experienced present manifestation.

S.. source, a substantial EOOR that is source of the potential sensory data under consideration.

Subjective reality...Personal experience of Image reality

Pre-written future.. PSD within the environment that may be received by an observer and be processed into experienced present.

Un-written future..Imaginary future that has no substantial existence. Uni-temporal.. singular universal time of Object reality. Passage of time being the change in configuration of the Object universe, only the youngest arrangement having substantial existence. The sequence of arrangements is imaginary (it has no substantial reality).




RICP Diagram 3


Object reality is ontic but Image reality whereby we know and understand our surroundings is both ontic, having factual existence, in that it is a real phenomenon, but also epistemic. We have to know how to decode the sensory output into meaning. Such as identifying individual 'objects', learned from relative motion of the seen images of them. People born blind who regain sight have to learn how to see. Also, for example- a photographic image is real (ontic) but what is depicted need not have been real, not having factual existence within a singular configuration of the Object universe. Like a cipher is ontic but the decoded message that is understood from it is epistemic. That is why I have depicted Image realty as both a part within Object reality but also as another level of emergent "reality". 
Any experiment involving observation using the sense of sight or sound or a device to be proxy for that visual or auditory system such as a camera is forming images of the objects and observing apparent interactions of those images. We generally do not conduct physics experiments using the sense of touch. If we did then I might agree that we use material objects directly but still filtered through the sensory system, delays limited to speed of transmission from skin to output sensation, a fraction of a second.


It is the thought that as 'our' perception is definite, singular, that is therefore what macroscopic reality is like, that is also a problem.

Prior to observation, without an observer's reference frame applied and no specification of when or where a measurement is to be made the object is in an absolute unmeasured state being all that it might be perceived to be. Because to be assigned a definite state observer reference frame and/or measurement protocol is needed. Examples of absolute states include both clockwise and anticlockwise spin; both concave and convex; both heads and tails, spinning up and spinning down.

An unobserved spinning coin in free fall does not have a state but is a superposition of all states until the measurement protocol produces a fixed observable.(Many observers in different positions relative to the coin could disagree about its state at a particular absolute time and all be correct from their own perspective.)

The flux of a spinning coin in free fall, how, the way in which, it is moving shows that state at a particular location or time need not be the primary or most important description of what the coin is. The action is the essence of what is occurring and is bound as an ensemble with the substantial object. Compare the flux of a river without regard to the water. It is the flux that gives the rivers character and that has a greater information content than just the water volume in space or temperature or any other singular measurement at a time and place. I mean it is is character, behavior, essence not just where or what at this or that location or this or that time.

That 'picture of what is occurring also explains why outcomes are probabilistic rather than fixed and certain. Consider the unobserved free falling spinning coin again. Not only is it a superposition of states because there is no reference frame-making all frames equally valid it is also in flux altering what would be observed from each reference frame as time passes, although the evolution is inherently deterministic without knowing starting state, that necessitating applying a reference frame and measuring its state, the outcome of any measurement can not be predicted. And as we know making a measurement disturbs the system so that it is altered.


Magic

A problem for physics if it does not acknowledge an Object reality is that it allows magic into the subject.

I have no doubt that my dog knows, with certainty, that the biscuit obscured from view still exists. Magic is real if material objects only come into existence upon observation. (As has been suggested by for example the participatory universe hypothesis of QM.) Observation produces a manifestation from received data, it does not create substantial objects. Magic is misdirection, distraction and skillful handling /manipulation. Causing a subjective reality to be constructed by the audience based upon incomplete information, playing to the “what you see is all there is” bias, the human tendency to draw strong conclusions from incomplete information. 5 The difficulties and incomplete information obtained from quantum scale experiments can lead to similar 'magical' misinterpretation. And also the belief that macroscopic reality is of fixed limited states (because that is what is observed ) rather than the absolute reality of all possible states that could be observed underlying impoverished perception.


“The question of whether or not when you see something, you see only the light or you see the thing you’re looking at, is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with. Even the most profound philosopher, sitting eating his dinner, has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak but it still implies the existence of the steak which he is able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers that were unable to make that analysis and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger.” Richard Feynman 13.


RICP Diagram 5.

Diagram showing Object reality and higher level epistemic Image reality and relationships between them.


Any viewpoint of a source object gives a representation of a part of the topology of the 3D source object not the whole of the source object. Manifestations of objects have limited fixed states determined by measurement/observation, and are partial representations of absolute Objects. The state observed by any singular observer is limited as the sensory data obtained from which the reality is fabricated is a limited sub set of all data available in the environment. Also measurements condense data into a limited number of detectable outcomes. So a coin's state can only be seen as heads or tails. A spinning object's state only as clockwise or anti-clockwise spin. The counter factual is eliminated by the process of forming the Image reality, selecting sensory data or making a measurement. This macroscopic reality is an impoverished representation of external source reality.

Consider: A concave /convex cup is, in absolute truth, in Object reality both simultaneously. There is not a singular truth prior to observation. It is when observation is made, that a particular frame of reference is imposed and, it 'becomes' one or the other. It, the observed manifestation, is not the same 'it' as the material source or the sensory data information from which it is fabricated. It, the observed manifestation, is truly just one, concave or convex, because the information to form the contradictory state can not be received simultaneously, and is not, so does not form a part of his/ her/ it's emergent reality. The emergent reality does not contain the counter factually definite. This is a switching from thinking about the world in one way, including all possible outcomes to looking at it in one particular way. The observer's Image reality is impoverished and does comply with the Law of non contradiction, unlike an unseen substantial object in Object reality and a theoretical superposition in a quantum probability space and the unseen potential sensory data encoding an object in the environmental data pool. These are three conditions in which the Law of non contradiction does not apply. A cup unseen in absolute space is both concave and convex, the potential sensory data in the environment encodes both concave and convex topology and a wave function of the superposition of states for the cup must allow for the two contradictory outcomes.

Thus emergent space time experienced reality of any singular observer, like any singular measurement, excludes the counter factually definite. The counter factual possibilities are not within space-time exterior to the observer, as space-time is an emergent reality output of sensory data processing that does not exist externally . The counter factual possibilities are unseen within the potential sensory data distributed in space and possibly still part of the Object source of the data, both belonging to the Object reality facet of reality, the Source side of the reality interface.

Wikipedia:"In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

There has traditionally been the idea of a divide between the sub microscopic and macroscopic scales, which seems to be the result of the different ways in which we must interact with them. Primary interacting with the macroscopic scale via our sense of sight and hence with the limited fixed definite output of that sensory processing and at the sub microscopic scale interacting via apparatus that gives measurement outcomes from unseen populations of particles.

There is another divide which is between Object reality and Image reality. Object reality exists at all scales including the astronomic and sub atomic. It is what exists at uni-temporal (same iteration of the Object universe everywhere) -Now. Preceding all observed presents (image realities), as the experienced present is fabricated from received data that has been emitted from objects and then processed, which takes time, ( iterations of the Object universe ). It can not be known directly but only via measurements that create sensory data or processing of potential sensory data from within the environment. Within the Object reality is the potential sensory data to form image realities of former things and events. This is data spread within uni-temporal space it is not space-time, as space-time is the output generated by processing of the data. Nor is it the space-time continuum as it can only be processed into Image reality outputs not substantial objects and events.


This explanatory framework ;


  1.  Allows the cause of the temporal paradoxes of Einstein's relativity to be understood

  2. .Allows Einstein’s relativity and QM to co-exist without contradiction.

  3. It shows there is a home for Absolute truth.

  4. It provides a home for substantial atoms and particles and their interactions.

  5. It explains the arrow(s) of time, Due to continual sequential change of the arrangement of Object universe and unidirectional input of data from Object reality to Image reality. That continual sequential iteration gives passage of time and gives the “preferred foliation” necessary for QM models.


Allows partial non-determinism overcoming the philosophical and theological problems highlighted earlier. Each material output becomes the next input upon which the laws of physics, and biology act. This is not fully determined as there will be balance points and the “direction” in which the outcome proceeds will be due to the slightest perturbation from the internal or external environment. This might be said to be the locations where “God plays dice”.

  1. Allows the measurement problem of QM to be understood. As received data relates to a specific iteration of the universe in which it was produced


  2. Allows the transition of QM physics to classical physics to be understood. Not as a matter of scale and not requiring environmental wave function collapse or Many Worlds. It is the transition from considering a model of unobserved reality to considering the another facet of reality the output of measurement or observation Image reality). The experimenter finds just one version of reality because one selection is made from the possibilities available. That detection is then fabricated into the output reality imagined.


  3.  Good explanations are difficult to vary while retaining the same explanatory power. The complexity of the explanatory framework can’t be shaved away with Occam’s razor as its structure is necessary for its function.

  4. .It’s an inclusive outline map of the territory already explored by physics.


  5. This framework overcomes the moral and theological problems that are inherent in the space- time continuum / “block time “ type models in which all occurrences are fully predetermined and persist within the continuum for all time. A fully existing space-time continuum is a merciless universe in which created cruelty and atrocity persists rather than ends. It makes redundant: a) functional morality b) choice and fee will c) The Creator, since the job is done. A Many Worlds Multi-verse, where everything that can happen does, is a terrifying fantasy when worse case scenarios are imagined. Worse than a singular, cruel and merciless, fully determined universe. Neither the space-time continuum nor Many Worlds Multi-verse can be the home of Absolute truth. Both rely upon subjective experience of what has happened out of many different possible perceptions.


 The pathways of particles and objects through the historical sequence of iterations may be imagined as strings. Though they are imaginary as only the youngest (most recent) iteration of the Object universe exists. So they only ever have one position not a super position spread over many iterations. Although they do not have concrete existence considering the pathways and interactions through the iterations could still be useful.


 The EM data in the environment might be described with quaternion algebra (or related algebra). The real time dimension though will represent the imaginary historical time line.


 The entirety of physical reality is more complex than a platonic block universe or a simple branching Multi-verse. So there’s lots for scientists and mathematicians to explore.


References and useful resources

1. ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

2. E= Einstein, His Life, His thoughts and His influence on our Culture, Sterling publishing Inc., New York, London 2006 : Quote from Part one p.34


3.Max Tegmark, Shut up and calculate, arXiv:0709.4024v1 [physics.pop-ph] 25 Sep. 2007

4.Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,.

(Plato.Stanford.edu/entries/qm-many worlds), first published March 24 2002.


5. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2011


6. David Eagleman on choice, at FQXi “Setting time aright” conference. Fqxi.org/conferences/talks/2011


7. Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time by J. C. N. Smith

by J. C. N. Smith • Jun. 20, 2012 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31418


  1. Wikipedia Category mistake : July 18 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

9. Lampa-Terrell-Penrose effect Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation July 18 2015 Note- Distortion within output images (from processing of received EM data), not indicating corresponding object distortion. 

10. McTaggart The Unreality of Time first published in Mind 17: p 457-73, 1908. The Life and Philosophy of J.McT.E. McTaggart 1866-1925, Gerald Rochelle,: Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston NY, 1991.


11.Quote from Einstein's Reply to Criticisms Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist , Vol. II, Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed. (New York, 1959), p. 669.


12.Newton's first law of motion by Sir Isaac Newton in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published on July 5, 1687. Isaac Newton, The Principia, A new translation by I.B. Cohen and A. Whitman, University of California press, Berkeley 1999.


13.Richard Feynman, Douglas Robb Memorial lectures 1979, recorded at The University of Auckland (New Zealand), University of Auckland (NZ), Streaming video www.vega.org.uk 2007*.


  1. 14.The Quantum Theory of Motion, An Account of the de Broglie–Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Holland, Peter R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993.

  1. 15.Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer Henry P. Stapp. Published by Springer Berlin Heidelburg New York 2007.

  1. 16.Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. Published byOxford university press 2006.

  1. 17.Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?.A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N Rosen (1935-05-15). Physical Review 47 (10): 777–80.

  2. 18.What is reality in the context of physics Georgina Parry http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Parry_fqxi_Complete_ESSAY_g.pdf Feb. 7. 2011

  3. 19.Category and Reconciliation Errors Georgina Woodward http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest- files/Woodward_Category_and_Recon.pdf Feb. 18, 2015

  4. 20.An examination of measurement relevant to entanglement and ontology: Answers to some long standing questions.” Georgina Woodward July 2016 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928 Georgina Woodward Jul. 9, 2016 @ 06:58 GMT pdf attachment

Sincere thanks and gratitude to Fqxi .org and the FQXi web community for an inspiring web site and opportunity for discussion around and about foundational physics. Special thanks to Ray Munroe ( RIP ), John Merryman , Eckard Blumschein, Thomas Ray

Thanks to my wonderful sons for their continued support and interest in this project over many years.


An examination of measurement relevant to entanglement and ontology: Answers to some long standing questions G Woodward July 2016

Abstract

This is about how measurement has been misunderstood and that has lead onto further misunderstanding. It has given the impression of 'spooky action at a distance' and made it seem that Bell's inequalities argument supporting that must be correct.

An argument is presented considering whether some measurements are not informing about the pre-existing properties of particles; but rather provoking responses, that are providing the measurement outcomes.

The mathematically impossible predictions for quantum experiments when pre-existing properties are assumed is looked at, while provocations are considered. That is with regard to different orientations of response being of non equivalent type and therefore not justifiably, added and subtracted. Calling into question the applicability of Bell's inequalities.

Different categories of measurement are given.

Entanglement is discussed in the light of the previous measurement arguments. Concluding that entanglement is due to symmetry, shown in same first measurement outcomes fitting predictions. There is refutation of faster than light communication, as a measurement is a response to the provocation supplied by the apparatus, not a pre-existing property that has come into being upon first partner measurement.

An ontological background for QM, relativity and perception is discussed.

The Harry Beck 'Tube' map is used in an argument that high predictive power does not necessarily equate to complete correspondence with underlying reality only an aspect or some aspects of it.



An examination of measurement relevant to entanglement and ontology Answers to some long standing questions G Woodward July 2016

An examination of measurement

MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2013 First lecture on Superposition by Allan Adams[1]: Allan Adams is asked by a student -how do we know that the measurement apparatus is giving a correct answer Allan Adams says something like -how do you know my name is Allan? You ask -"what's your name" and I say "Allan" and so that's my name.( The precise words used below. )
Fair point, however use of the electron spin detector is more like asking -”how do you behave under these particular circumstances: Allan is put into a box with a lion?” Now he can not run away so there are two behaviours possible. Freeze inhibiting the prey response or rage intimidating the predator. On finding the result Allan can be categorized as a 'Freezer' or a 'Rager', neither of which are usual 'Allan-ness' properties. The Lion box is not simply a measurement device but a provocation device.

Introduction to Superposition MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I [1]
Quotes. Student questions: " How do you know the boxes work?" and later : "You can't (inaudible) you know which one is White."

Allan Adams: "Its like how do you know my name is Allan? You say 'Allan' and I say 'What?'- right? But you're like 'that's not a test of whether I'm Allan'. But that's what it means to say the electron is White. Its like well 'whats the test?'- 'Whats your name?' 'I'm Allan'. 'Oh great that's your name'."

[He is using White to represent one of the binary outputs of x axis spin detection]

First quoting Allan Adams and then considering putting him in a Lion box may seem a bit cruel. No disrespect is intended. He is a marvelous teacher. During his lecture simplifications are used to help understanding of the subject and it seems in some instances illustrate the current state of understanding of it within physics. The way in which names are assigned (and then assumed to be properties) as shown in the quote and mention that it really doesn't matter how a 'colour box' works (as he says in the referenced video, it could be a hyper-intelligent monkey inside, it doesn't matter).It isn't that physicists don't know the workings of the apparatus. They do and the precise way the apparatus functions is not needed to consider the outputs. Other mechanisms/means could hypothetically do the same. So the monkey suggestion is not wrong. However what is interesting and significant is that by dismissing how the apparatus functions there isn't philosophical consideration of what is happening when a particle interacts with the machine. Is it sorting pre-existent differences or creating them? That gets sidestepped but will be discussed here. It will be shown that experimental results are indicating that the provocation device is not an observer of existing reality but measure-er of the created response it provoked. A kind of untrustworthy reality interface. ( Reality interface:An interface between the underlying (source) reality and perception. Imposing orientation and relative reference frame. It gives a limited fixed state output, that pertains to the information input from the environment. That information having been changed in type, or in some other way).

Evidence for provocation is given in the descriptions of experiments in Introduction to Superposition MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I [1]

If y axis spin is produced then x axis spin is potentially lost. Fitting the evidence from experiments where x axis spin is tested first and then one output (lets say up) is y axis tested, and then x axis tested again. Former x axis spin ' supposed identity' has been lost by half of the particles undergoing the test (the spin has become 50:50 random). However if only half have changed it would be necessary to explain why only half the particles lose their x axis spin, and why them in particular, rather than all being affected the same way. A better proposition is: If y axis spin is produced then x axis spin is probably lost, as the particles re-tested along the x axis behave as if they have never been previously tested in that way. This means spin isn't an identity or inherent property but a response to what a particle has 'experienced'. So the output of a provocation of a partner particle, not carried out on the other, can not be used to know about the one not tested in that way. If the apparatus is a provocation device, like the Lion box mentioned previously, it isn't possible to know for example both x and y spin for one member of a pair of entangled particles; y from 'measurement' and x from knowing the spin of the entangled partner. Just investigating spins with that kind of apparatus: The response to a provocation not carried out does not exist. Each test with the apparatus is a different provocation producing a new response and there is no correlation between the responses for each axis.


The above premise suggests that the Bell's inequalities argument is a red herring, as Bell's argument requires the assumption that all measurements are of pre-existing intrinsic properties. Also the explanatory framework providing the necessary ontology for dispelling the paradoxes or relativity and allowing QM and relativity to exist without contradiction is not the space-time continuum. The argument that the quantum experiment results must be pre-existent in the space-time continuum is incompatible with the necessary (as will be explained) alternative ontological framework. Description of the explanatory framework including the underlying ontology can be found at the end of this article. The quantum experiment results are products of the interactions of beables with their local environment in the underlying material reality.


What Bell did- Tim Maudlin” (Video) [2] very clearly sets out the EPR argument for which Bell's inequalities argument was developed.
When Tim Maudlin is explaining the problem of spins near the end of the video (53:58) he says that the spins are measured either along the x or y axis. Then he says the expectations and goes on to say 'U's' and 'D's must be assigned. A question :If two different orientations are being measured why are the measurements for both still designated as up and down ? Why is y axis spin direction result treated as the same as x axis spin direction result( both ups just called ups) in the puzzle purporting to show mathematical impossibility? Both x and y could be horizontal and so up and down are possible descriptions for both; however having the same designations for both orientations is inadequate as they are not the same (effects) but perpendicular. Shouldn't it be that if x axis spin is measured giving up and down results, y axis measurement should be left and right ( or some other designation differing from the x spin axis outcomes; perpendicular to the x measurements.) The conclusion he gives is that it must be mathematically impossible to do what he has described. But is that mathematically impossible thing actually correctly representing the measurements made? It can be argued that it is not. 'L'/'R' values could be placed instead of 'U'/'D's for the ys ( making the predictions wrong because of not taking the change of orientation into account.)


It was already known when Bell developed his inequalities argument that second measurements of a particle do not show the entanglement. Measurement along a different spin axis after first measurement negates the value of the first axis spin that was measured. As at repeat testing of the first the outcome is 50.50 random and not 100% as it would be without the second different spin axis measurement in-between. There is no correlation between x axis spin and y axis spin.

If x and y are uncorrelated the y measurement of one of the particles shouldn't alter the x measurements of the other particles. The number of 'U's is only different, when the y values are also considered, if the y ups are considered as the same thing a x ups designated 'U'. They should be called something else.

Analogy to demonstrate why change of provocation matters:

If the Lion box is rotated so that the lion is above Alan rather than on the same horizontal plane it is a different provocation eliciting a different response, attempting to burrow perhaps. Better still, since here the analogy is to show a lack of correlation the second box could be another different provocation such as a Water box. Now the freeze /rage responses must be lost or Allan drowns. Now he can tread water or swim around the walls. Going from Lion box to another Lion box there is no change. However Lion box, Water box, Lion box there is because the water response has no correlation to the lion response and the earlier lion response is lost. He can't be frozen and treading water or swimming, and he can't be raging uncontrolled while doing controlled swimming or treading water. Alluding to the idea that there can't be both x and y spin of the same particle at the same time.


There seems to be an assumption in the mathematical puzzle re polarization, shown in the previously mentioned Tim Maudlin video
[2], that the results of the challenges presented by the different polarizer orientations are additive. Giving something mathematically impossible like in the spin results puzzle described in the video. Whereas each might better be considered as a unique 'provocation' that is not correlated to other results. (This goes back to Allan saying (words to the effect) that a measurement is an introduction and it has been argued here that it isn't, it is a response to provocation.)


A comparison of full alignment and 60 degree rotation shows results as different as comparison of full alignment and 30 degree rotation and comparison of 30 degree rotation and 60 degree rotation.

The behaviour of the photons that have passed the polarizers with same orientations are all the same, they could be designated as oranges.

The photons that have passed a polarizer at 30 degrees are ones responding to that challenge and are not the same as the oranges (that passed a different challenge). Nor have the ones stopped by the polarizer responded by becoming oranges or anti oranges. Passing ones can be designated green apples and stopped red apples. Similarly with the polarizer at 60 degrees; Photons passing through are not oranges or green apples. They might be designated as yellow bananas and ones stopped as black bananas.


The impossible sum has this form: Total oranges - black bananas= total oranges - ( red apples + black bananas). The first challenge with a polarizer does not distinguish between photons, so all are given the same designation. Subsequent challenges give different outcomes with some passing and some not, so they can be differentiated and hence their different names. The ones that don't pass can't be considered the same as the ones that did pass the first test ( or previous test) or anti-versions of them. What they are is a product of the challenge they have encountered. That analysis can then be used to look again at the calculation. In the EPR argument it is assumed that the values are pre-determined and the same kind ,and so they can be added and subtracted. Here that assumption is called into question; and consequently so is spooky action at a distance as the evidence in favour of it has been called into question and found wanting.


There are at least 3 different kinds of interaction with elements of physical reality that are thought of as measurements or observations.

1. With Measuring instruments: (that do not provoke responses) between what is unseen/unknown and what is seen or known. Using a device or measuring instrument that merely gives a limited fixed state output that pertains to the intrinsic state of the object at measurement. (Though may still cause the observer effect by disturbing what is observed in the act of measurement.)The information within the material reality is used to form a related intermediate output reality. That measurement can then be used to form knowledge about the object or be used in calculations.


2. With
Reality interfaces: An interface between aspects of the underlying (source) reality and perception, that gives a limited fixed state output that pertains to the information input but is not that information. The information is changed in some way such as change of distribution by a lens and/or change of type such as digital output of a camera from photon information input )Organisms sensory systems that take information from the environment (could be thought of as sampling )and generate a related representation and a computer obtaining input from a sensor or sensors might also fall into this category. These measurements are of objective information but not the material sources of the information. An observer is able to comprehend the output of the receipt and processing of information. Observers and reality interfaces are going beyond mere measurement that fixes (what might be varying values in the underlying reality) they are generating a new output reality from input information with definite differences from the source external reality. 

3.With
Provocation devices: The instruments that provoke responses that can then be mistaken for pre-existing intrinsic properties.

What all of the 3 categories have in common is imposing orientation and reference frame. That is the first step in going from an underlying reality without orientation or reference frame to a relative (output) reality. In no way can the 3 categories be considered equivalent and so ought to be differentiated with different names. This is relevant to Question 1 posed in the FQXi blog: Physics of the Observer call for proposals and program launch, “1. What does being an observer mean? ….
[6]


Re. entanglement:


Particles A. and B. are prepared in such a way that they are anti-correlated. If that is regarded as a response to the preparation procedure it can then be thought of as persisting in the same way that a spin axis detection response is retained; so that a repeat testing produces the same outcome. If the anti-correlated pair undergo the same spin axis test they are undergoing the same provocation and the responses are anti-correlated as expected. It does not matter which same test. Anti-correlation can only be found if the test is the same. If instead A. has an x axis spin test and B. has a y axis spin test, the response have no relevance to the formerly anti-correlated partner. A. does not have a y spin axis spin inherent property and nor has it been provoked into responding with y spin axis spin, B. does not have x axis spin as an inherent property and has not been provoked into a x axis spin response. It has been shown that there is no correlation between the different kinds of spin axis spins, which seems to imply they are not inherent properties held concurrently. So having two different spin axis outcomes provides no extra information than two same spins. As the non matched spins are only relevant to the particle tested in each particular way.

To be clear: If the test is a provocation causing a response: Test of the first partner of an entangled pair does not immediately cause the anti-correlated state of the distant partner because a test has to be carried out on that partner too to provoke the anti-correlated response. So there isn't faster than light communication happening.

The "connection between" the entangled particles is a symmetry established at preparation and is a relation between the two particles rather than something that can be possessed by just one of the partners, or both individually without regard to the other. The symmetry requires both in a relation. It can be sustained over large spatial separations and shows up when same measurements are performed on the separated partners. Giving results that meet with expectation being either correlated or anti correlated according to how the particles were prepared. There is no need for each particle to carry a complete set of outcomes for every test that could be carried out so that the partners can co-ordinate their results. That just happens because of the symmetry, whichever same test. There is no faster than light communication. When a measurement is carried out on one the result, from the same test (measurement), that will be obtained from the other can be known. However that result does not already exist, it hasn't come into being with the first measurement. Only when the second test is carried out on the partner does the expected measured state happen as it is a response to the measurement. Different tests do not provide more information about the particles. If a test hasn't been carried out on a particle the (would be) result of that test has no relevance. It isn't a property of the particle and it is not a behaviour expressed because of the test (measurement) because the test hasn't happened.

Spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein called it, isn't faster than light communication going on or hidden variables but what is (it seems to me) another category error. Responses to 'provocations' being wrongly identified and treated as as inherent properties.


Re. Ontology


The 2013 conference on Quantum physics without observers is available as a series of YouTube videos. Watching the summary [3], the problem the participants have been wrestling with, namely lack of an ontology, a background in which QM fits with classical physics and experience is made strikingly clear. Richard Feynman [4] too puzzles over why QM works so well. He explains very well that the mathematics works as a tool for getting the right answer and the procedures can be simply explained, like bean counting getting the same results as abstract arithmetic rules. He makes clear that however it is done it doesn't explain why it works. Putting how the mathematics is calculated into English leads to weird descriptions.

The lack of a realistic 'background' and the need for it counters dismissal of the RICP explanatory framework on the grounds that it gives the same outcomes as relativity and the explanations of the paradoxes of relativity are not the only possible ones- so"what is the use of it"? If the background is not un-involved it is possible to give explanations that do not require actual superposition or involve splitting worlds. Consider here interaction with environmental vibrations from atoms with the motion of a particle giving the impression of wave particle duality. Also interaction with the environment of a glass block as the relation of amplitudes at top and bottom surfaces is correlated with the relation of wavelength and the number of them that will fit the depth of the glass. Which does not require communication between photons at top and bottom surfaces to explain changes in amounts of reflection but only interaction of the photons with the dynamic environment. Full number of wavelengths depth maximizing reflection and a half number minimizing it.
Re. the double slit experiment: Seeing that there is a wave phenomenon does not necessarily mean the wave motion is inherent to the particle by itself. An object is not isolated from the environment that surrounds it. I am proposing that it is the influence of the environment that causes the wave motion to be adopted. The particle is needed for the wave motion to be manifest (through the interference pattern) on the detector; built up even with single particles. However the production of that pattern implying a wave has gone through both slits could be indicating that the waves are not an inherent property but an external influence.
Thought has been given to the possibility of conducting double slit experiments at extremely cold temperatures to overcome environmental influences on particles but there are difficulties. The energy added to the system by introducing particles to test could raise the temperature altering the environment. It is extremely difficult to reach temperatures where there aren't atomic vibrations and it would be very difficult to make practical use of that environment to demonstrate the effect of environmental influences. The idea for why there appears to be wave particle duality was put forward in the FQXi contest November 2010 - February 2011: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Entry called “ What Is Reality In the Context of Physics?” by Georgina Parry

The glass block behaviour /particle interaction is a related extension of that idea. That behaviour is not just the expression of intrinsic properties.

Taking the idea that not all measurements are of intrinsic properties but some are actually provocation of a response ( Considering the Stern Gerlach apparatus to 'measure' electron spin here), such measurements are not in the same category as measurements of pre-existing properties.


Both quantum physics (excluding Bohmian mechanics) and relativity do not take account of an underlying material reality, a reality consisting of Beables, that I have been calling Object reality. They are models that are formed from information. As relativity is generally understood the output from received electromagnetic radiation is taken to be the external reality. This has happened because of a category error. Measurements of seen images are muddled with measurements of material objects. The 'information' derived universe is taken to be THE reality. The category error is also the cause of the paradoxes associated with relativity. QM produces very good predictions. Not sufficient to consider the 'picture of quantum reality' produced from descriptions of what is being done mathematically, to be complete reality. That mistake would be a bit like taking the Harry Beck London underground map to be complete reality for accurately predicting the order of stations and line exchanges only occurring at marked junctions. Even though the spatial journey of a passenger on the material train does not correspond to the spatial changes shown on the map. Harry Beck's 'Tube' map [7]. The map is designed for ease of use of the network. The map represents some aspects of reality accurately -ordering of stations, and correctly indicated line junctions where passengers can switch lines. However the spatial distribution of the network, that is its correspondence to spatial geography has been forfeited. It is spatially/geographically highly inaccurate in order to give simplicity of function, that is ease of use. I have read that that has caused some tourists some confusion. It can be used for easy navigation of the network but not for planning a journey outside of it, meaning the locations of the stations in relation to each other on the map do not correspond to the geographical distribution of the stations in material reality or on ordinance survey maps. The map is constructed from information about the network and conveys that information accurately, but it does not fully correspond to the reality that is its raison d'etre, the material 'tube train' rail network with a particular spatial distribution. The relevance to physics is this provides a refutation of the argument that a model with impressive predictive power must be accurately modeling reality because of that high predictive power. The map represents some aspects of reality accurately -ordering of stations, and line junctions. However it is spatially/geographically highly inaccurate in order to give simplicity of function, that is ease of use. This shows that high predictive power can only be taken as an indication of some correspondence to reality not entire correspondence.


Bohmian mechanics is an attempt to incorporate beables to make something more 'realistic', reconnecting with the material world and not relying only on structures formed from information. However trying to combine beables and the informational model creates a chimera of dubious nature. It would be better to keep them separate and acknowledge what they are and are not. The informational 'domain ' can be populated by what is knowable (including appropriate mathematical manipulation of that) and what is known from measurements and outputs from received information. The beables domain consists of what is real but not directly knowable and is the source of what is knowable and known. The beables are the sources of information, the material apparatus and the observers. So the informational models; QM, relativity and perception absolutely require beables to also exist, appended to those models to make sense of them and complete them.


Outline of the explanatory framework including the ontological background necessary for 'non spooky” QM, dispelling of the paradoxes of relativity and for the non contradiction of QM and relativity

Constituents: Space-time output of electromagnetic information receipt and processing, and underlying unseen (source)material beables (fermion particles, atoms, ions and objects consisting of configurations of some or all of those previously mentioned particles), and electromagnetic radiation that carries information.

Structure and function: The underlying foundational reality changes from configuration to configuration according to the relations within each existent configuration. Only the most recent configuration exists, having been formed from what preceded. Therefore the underlying reality has no time dimension only a history that can be imagined along a time line. That is to say it is uni-temporal, the same time everywhere. The time dimension relates to the electromagnetic information within the material, foundational reality.

that permits different observers to receive different information from which their own observed reality is produced. (A model constructed using received information. ) That output is a relative reality where as the unseen domain of the beables and the electromagnetic radiation distributed in it has no single observer reference frame or orientation. Those being to do with observation relative to an observer or measuring device and so not inherent. Unlike the perception of an observer which is formed solely from the information received with a particular reference frame and orientation. That ontological description ( Object reality) provides the background in which the 'informational models', Relativity and QM and human perception, are occurring.


The term "beable" comes from “The theory of local beables” by J. S. Bell and Alain Aspect. Beables are those things that are 'be able' rather than merely 'know able'. It includes; the sources of information, material apparatus and observers. It also includes things that are formed from configurations of beables such as the position of dials on the material apparatus.(This is discussed in the 1979 Interview with David Bohm [5] )So they are the actual constituents of the material world itself, rather than he constructs formed from information.


Summary


An argument has been set out: that measurement in these quantum experiments is not merely asking for an introduction i.e. asking for a pre-existent inherent property but is provoking a response, that is a behaviour that is not there without the provocation. Allan Adams explains that measuring electron spin is like asking someone's name. An answer is given and then that is deemed to be what it (the questioned thing) is. Here though it has been argued that the measurement apparatus is more like a Lion box. When Allan is put in the box he is not asked his name but responds to the lion. His response is not what we would normally regard as an inherent property of Allan. There is no guarantee that he will always respond the same way. This is a departure from the idea of strict determinism of pre-existent properties of the measured particles. With this approach entanglement can be reconsidered and it is found to be explicable as kinds of symmetry in the relation between particles. Symmetry that is detected in expected results when a first 'test' that is the same is performed.3 different kinds of interaction with elements of physical reality have been considered and differentiated. Having discussed interaction with the environment affecting particles what that underlying environment is and how physics models relate to it is considered. Confusion of the output of electromagnetic information receipt and processing with external reality is a category error within relativity- cause of the paradoxes. Relativity, QM and perception are all models that work with information and exclude the underlying material reality.


Does anyone want to argue that the Stern Gerlach apparatus is merely asking for an introduction and not provoking a novel response?


References / Resources


1. MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2013

First lecture on Superposition by Allan Adams

Published on Jun 18, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc


2. Tim Maudlin - What Bell Did

This talk was held during the "Summer School on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics dedicated to John Bell" in Sesto, Italy (28.07.2014 - 30.07.2014).

Published on Aug 4, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5z_zeZP60


3. Sheldon Goldstein - Retrospective and perspective in quantum theory without observers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO81pBEac8E

This is a talk held at the conference "Quantum Theory without Observers III" (ZiF, Bielefeld, 22.04.-26.04.2013). There are also interviews with several of the participants available.

Published on Jun 25, 2013


4. QED: Fits of Reflection and Transmission -- Quantum Behaviour -- Richard Feynman (2/4)

Published on Mar 14, 2012


5.The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures, University of Auckland, 1979Interview with David Bohm

Uploaded on Dec 24, 2011

Interview with David Bohm at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, 1989.

Introduction shown below video on youtube page

"I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment...." (David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order)


6. Physics of the Observer call for proposals and program launch http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2585


7. Harry Beck's Tube map - Transport for London https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/culture-and-heritage/art-and-design/harry-becks-tube-map


FQXi.org contest November 2010 - February 2011: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Entry called “ What Is Reality In the Context of Physics?” by Georgina Parry

Further argument for explanatory framework including the ontological background is provided elsewhere,in other articles,diagrams and essays essays posted on the FQXi.org site and FQXi community online discussion)

Thanks to the FQXi online community, administrators and directors. Special thanks to all those who have believed in and supported me in this task, enabling me to come this far, they know who they are : )


Relativity revisited using an explanatory framework with both substantial reality and output of EM processing:

It must be remembered throughout that things are seen only by receipt of EM information not any kind of remote knowledge.


Scenario:There are two people lets say Alice and Bob, both have their own clock. Bob has a stationary reference frame, Alice moves at very high velocity relative to Bob. At the instant Bob sees 1 minute elapsed on his near clock he receives light from Alice's clock which forms into an image showing less than 1 minute has elapsed on her clock. It takes time for the light to reach him so if he waited for the light that would show 1 minute on Alice's clock more than 1 minute would have elapsed on his own. As it takes time for the light to reach Bob from Alice during this time Alice and her clock have continued to move further away and as Bob sees the less than one minute of Alice's clock, she is seeing the full 1 minute of her own clock. Alice's minutes only appear slower to Bob because of the non infinite speed of light carrying information from which his 'Image' of distant things is formed. Alice's velocity is underestimated IF it is calculated as distance traveled according to Bob divided by his own clock's time measurement of how long it has taken Alice to reach the seen position. He thinks she has only gone as far as she is seen to go rather than the distance she actually travels despite him.


This is the interesting bit- There are now two different kinds of simultaneity: The simultaneity of Bob's present with his full minute showing clock and the image of Alice's slower time AND there is the simultaneity of Bob's substantial matter clock's completion of a full minute and Alice's substantial matter clock's completion of a full minute. The latter is the reality of the substantial matter, where the matter called Alice and the matter called Bob actually is and the configurations of matter corresponding to the time on the clocks themselves, independent of what is seen via EM transmission , receipt and conversion to output. It is assumed the clocks were synchronized prior to the test and that they remain accurate throughout. Alice will have the reciprocal simultaneity seeing her own full minute simultaneous to an image of Bobs slower clock.

Alice and Bob need not be people they could be replaced by inorganic detectors. 


Lets say Alice and Bob agree on the co-ordinate of the starting position of Alice and her clock(A) So the position of substantial A, (P1) is the agreed equivalent (I.E. corresponds to ) of the position assigned to the image of A seen by Bob (X)


Distance traveled by substantial A= length between P1 and P2 


Distance of travel seen by Bob is the length between starting position Image A, X and seen image A position at 1 minute on his clock, Y . That is distance XY 


Velocity of substantial A is length P1 P2 / time taken as measured by A


Velocity of Alice according to Bob and his clock (B) is length XY/ time measured by B. Not the distance between the images as seen but the measurement corresponding to those coordinates as would be measured 'on the ground'.


When image A is seen at Y object A is at P2. The difference is the distance A moves in the time it takes the light from Y to reach B


Image velocity of A is XY/ image A clock time as seen by Bob; which is equivalent to( XY + YZ)/1 minute. [YZ is an unknown distance to P2]


YZ is the distance traveled at Image velocity A in the time it takes light to travel Y to B. Having found Y Z, position of Z corresponding to P2 can be found.


This is only significant at a significant proportion of light speed as light travels extremely quickly , so distance Y B is covered extremely quickly giving very little time for A to go much distance unless A is also travelling extremely quickly.


An accompanying diagram can be found at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928


Premise: There is one ever changing configuration of the (Object) universe that is uni-temporal, that is, the same time everywhere. The temporal expression corresponding to the existing configuration is uni-temporal -Now. Only the youngest configuration has substantial existence.


Relating the given example to that premise: The first configuration that is considered has substantial objects Bob and his clock(B) at position B and substantial objects Alice and her clock(A) at position P1. So there is a relation between them within that configuration of a distance BP1. When substantial object A reaches P2, B is at B'(unmoved if the motion of the Earth is ignored). There is within this uni-temporal -Now a relation between the substantial objects A and B forming part of the newest configuration of the object universe of a distance BP2. 


The second premise: The speed of light is not infinite but finite, measured as 299 792458 m/s in a vacuum.

Relating that premise to the given example. Traveling at the speed of light it takes time for light emitted from source substantial objects A to get to B'. 


The simultaneity observed by Bob, is the image reality formed from observation of his own clock and Alice's clock, showing apparent loss of synchronization of the clocks, with Alice's clock appearing to be slow. The simultaneity observed by Alice is the image reality formed from observation of her own clock and Bob's clock, showing apparent loss of synchronization of the clocks, with Bob's clock appearing to be slow. The times and positions observed are not those of the substantial matter but apparent 'events' formed from received light. 


Apparent events fabricated from received light are distinct from the configurations of and interactions of substantial bodies. (Sources of EM potential information)


Motion of an observer alters the pathway through the light that is within the environment , giving image realities corresponding to the EM information received.


Different relative motions can produce different apparent simultaneities due to differences in when and where the EM information is received. So when an apparent event is seen to occur is variable but when a substantial body interaction or relation occurs is invariant as it belongs to a particular configuration of the Object universe. 


In order to extend relativity to light, electricity and magnetism , the concept must be held that those phenomena are unchanged by changing reference frame. As the light within the light clock can not be traveling further within the clock because of the way it is looked at, the time period measured by the clock itself is not slowed by the translation of the clock. Even though this means disregarding the logic of the straight line light path argument. Though the period and frequency of the light motion is unaltered (traveling the same wave motion distance in the same time, from the relative perspective of the observer the motion is extended over a longer spatial distance. Having the effect of making the wavelength appear longer and the frequency lower. ( This might have some relevance to the question of ubiquitous red shift within cosmological observations.) 

Re. Einstein's light clock. The light traveling between the mirrors is not moving in a straight line like a ray, but undergoing wave motion. Following an oscillating path that is the same whether there is relative translation or not. The notion that the light takes a longer path when the clock is moved is based on the straight line assumption. Instead it can be thought of as a fixed length of periodic motion with a fixed frequency, extended spring like in the translated reference frame. Following the path along the spring it is the same length whether the spring is extended or not. It is the same 'spring' in both reference frames and so the same length along the 'spring'. This means the speed of light is the same in both reference frames , even though it appears that when the clock is moved the light is traveling further in a straight line at c , making the period of the clock longer. 




Gravitational time dilation and the RICP explanatory framework (amended)


The problem: Accounting for non reciprocal measurable time differences in different gravitational potentials, on top of assumed reciprocal signal latency due to same distance of separation, without alteration of “time itself”.


Ideas rejected as useful for the solution of this problem

The light both entering the atmosphere and coming to Earth and leaving is considered by most people to be traveling in a straight line. We are taught in school light travels in a straight line. Changes in density of the atmosphere to do with composition and temperature becoming less dense with altitude is one reason the light may curve as there is an altering refractive index. This is well known and undoubtedly already taken into account by scientists and space communication technicians.

Worth considering

The Earth is rotating creating an accelerated frame of reference in which the approaching light is spiraling in, with a diminishing wavelength and corresponding increasing of frequency and and leaving light is spiraling out, with an increasing wavelength and corresponding longer frequency.


An exaggerated illustration to demonstrate that assertion The following visual aid can be drawn to help the comprehension of what is occurring.

The first task is segmenting a circle so that there is a hemisphere divided into 6 segments. (Or a whole circle segmented into12 if you prefer.) An eye can be drawn outside each segment looking directly in representing the view of an outside observer moving with the rotation of the earth or inside each segment looking out representing the view from the co-rotating Earth bound observer. Draw a small circle in the centre to represent the Earth.


For light entering the atmosphere and coming to the Earth draw a small straight line to represent the light getting progressively nearer to the centre. Start by placing the first line in the middle of the first segment with one end touching the perimeter. For a 12 cm circle a 1cm line can be drawn, 1 cm further in for each segment. So line 1 touches the perimeter and line 6 touches the centre of the circle. The same can be done for light leaving the Earth. Line 1 touching the centre of the circle and line 6 touching the perimeter. It can be seen that there is disparity between the outputs of received signals at the different locations.


A smoother path could be obtained by having many more segments and shorter lines but the approximation is suffice to demonstrate the principle. The in and out going lines and segment transitioning lines could also be combined into vectors to give a smoother more natural light curve but the rawness of the illustration helps with the visualization of the important components of the phenomena.


Findings

Looking at the two spirals drawn: The Earth receiver getting the red shifted signal making the timekeeping of the distant satellite seem slow and the satellite receiving blue shifted signal making the time keeping on Earth seem fast. This is explained as follows.

Outgoing signal :The distance per unit time (whatever unit or event is being used )represented by the line, it can be seen that the vertical distance from the centre straight out is the same in each segment , and this in the non rotating inertial view, i.e. just adding up the straight line lengths, would give a constant distance over time estimation. However if the centre point of the lines in each segment are joined up to give an approximation of the lights motion it can be seen that 'heading out' each transition across a segment is a larger distance than the previous transition. The light is traveling progressively further per unit time (whatever unit or event is being used )and so the wavelength must be getting longer though the reason is not obvious to the observer only aware of the (in -out direction )straight line path.

Incoming signal : The distance per unit time (whatever unit or event is being used )represented by the line, it can be seen that the vertical distance from the centre straight out is the same in each segment , and this in the non rotating inertial view. If the centre point of the lines in each segment are joined up to give an approximation of the lights motion it can be seen that 'heading in' each transition across a segment is a shorter distance than the previous transition. The light is traveling progressively less per unit time (whatever unit or event is being used )and so the wavelength must be getting shorter though the reason is not obvious to the observer only aware of the straight line path.


What is happening in these scenarios regarding time: The observed relative rate of change by comparison ( a measure of the amount of spatial -relational change that is seen to be occurring); or in plain English the clock time, for the distant clock observed via received EM signal, is different for the different observers. Earth observer getting a blue shifted EM signal regards the time of the sender to be faster than time on the Earth observer's own clock. The satellite observer receiving red shifted signal regards time on Earth to be slow compared to his own clock. Does this mean there are differences in time itself in the two different locations over and above reciprocal latency due to transmission time? It is only so if the time in each place, allowing for that lag lag, is regarded as being directly correlated to the time shown by the clocks. It is important to note these are differences in the output, derived reality of the different observers within the same and only sequence of configurations of the Object universe. That is to say the Object universal time parameter is unaffected. The effect is relative output from EM radiation receipt ( used for comparison with locally produced 'image' of own clock ) allowing judgment of relative difference in observed passage of time (Image reality).


Using this explanatory framework we can say that the light is just taking the shortest path. The curved path over time is visible by seeing it from an accelerated reference frame because of the rotation of the Earth. Thus it is not necessary to conclude that the bending of the light path is caused by warping of space-time due to the gravitational mass of the Earth in external reality. The reference frame in which objects are being observed must be considered. Straight line paths become curved when seen in an accelerated (non inertial reference frame). Consider a straight path drawn as a line over a circle . Now imagine the circle as a planet with an observer stationary on its surface, as the planet is rotating (the circle can be segmented as before to help visualize this.) From the observer reference frame the straight line is a parabola as distance of the line from the observer is decreasing and then increasing as the planet rotates. In contrast a curved path can be seen staying equidistant from the observer and thus appear straight. To simplify that curved or straight is a matter of relativity, how something is being looked at.


Problem: the above explanation of non reciprocal alteration to signals does not explain the alteration of time keeping of (substantial matter) clocks held as proof of Einstein's ('alteration of time itself') time dilation.

Some thoughts pertinent to this conundrum


Premise: The substantial objects of Object reality are not formed or directly affected by derived relative reality (including image reality; this 'what is seen'. Though a living agent might affect substantial objects in reaction to perceived Image reality.)


On the basis of that premise, if there is a permanent alteration to the time shown on two formerly synchronized clocks, that have either been subject to different gravitational potential or travelling at different velocities, making them out of synchronization when brought together, there must be another process or processes occurring that affects substantial matter, rather than only relative perception due to affects on EM radiation transmission. As the difference in time shown on the substantial experimental clocks is found to persist when they are reunited it has to be rooted in their substantial reality not different relative output realities from EM information receipt. It is not necessary to conclude that it must be differences in “time itself”, unless “time itself” is given the definition of being (only) what the clock measures.


Quote “Basically a clock consists of four items: something that generates events at a regular interval (the oscillator), a counting mechanism, some method to calibrate the rate of the events, and a time

setting mechanism. In a fundamental sense, we do not tell time, but only count events. On a low

level, we deal in time intervals, not time. The zero of our time system is arbitrary and set by

convention – or some committee. This origin, along with a definition of the second, defines a

time frame. The rate that the events occur must be calibrated. This means that there must be standards.......” James R. Clynch. Precise Time and Time Interval Clocks, Time Frames and Frequency 2003 Department of Oceanography Naval Postgraduate School



Quote:The principle underlying the cesium clock is that all atoms of cesium-133 are identical and, when they absorb or release energy, produce radiation of exactly the same frequency, which makes the atoms perfect timepieces. Encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote:The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it. Jason Schanker SCICOM MIT


Requirement

A cause of change in the number of 'events' generated or events measured needs to be investigated.

It could be an effect on any of the components that generate the time intervals, regulate them or count them or the system as a whole.


Quote :”Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.” Wikipedia


Consider those two atomic clocks flown in opposite directions around the globe. Plane A travels in the direction of rotation of the Earth, plane B flies against the rotation of the Earth. To the hypothetical accelerated reference frame of an observer at the centre of the Earth (or a distant observer stationary above the spatial co-ordinate of the starting point of the two planes (not geostationary above the start position on the Earth), plane A is seen to fly a greater distance with the movement of the Earth than the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth.


Thought 1: Plane A gets an easier task moving with the mass movement of the atmosphere whereas plane B has to work harder to overcome the inertia of the plane-atmosphere system, both components resisting change.

Quote: “Unfortunately, an atom or molecule does not vibrate, or-putting it more accurately-emit or absorb energy at one frequency only, but rather over a range of frequencies. The narrower the range, the more accurate the spectrum line will be as a time standard. The range or width of the spectrum covered 4,y the spectrum line is determined by several factors. Among the most important of these are the violent collisons between the atoms or molecules which disturb the vibration, causing a broadening of the spectrum line. The thermal motion of the gas atoms also gives rise to what is called a Doppler broadening..” …...the signal will be absorbed when the frequency or vibration rate of the radio wave is exactly equal to the frequency of vibrations corresponding to the spectrum line....”This

phenomenon can be made use of in making an atomic clock. If the cy[c]lic or vibrating mechanism giving the beat of the clock is made to generate a radio wave, the absorption of this wave by the gas will be at a maximum when the vibration rate of the wave and the clock is at the right frequency, and weaker if it is off frequency; this is the basic mechanism involved in control, although details of execution may vary. “Harold Lyons, 1950 The atomic clock A universal standard of frequency and time. (My emphasis).

Thought 2: The need to have precise frequency matching to generate an accurate event together with sensitivity to disturbance could tie together a lesser number of events and greater instability of the clock on the anti-rotation journey. The higher frequency for the plane with the greatest velocity, exceeding the Earth rotation, in the Earth rotation direction, also needs mentioning. It could be due to the increase in mass of the atomic nuclei used for time event generation, due to additional inertia (resistance to change of motion ) at that higher velocity. That might have a dampening effect on the noise causing imprecise frequency matching. Giving a cleaner faster matched frequency generation and consequent faster rate of the clock.

Thought 3. It is possible that there could be an effect produced by different external gravitational potentials on the fundamental time keeping process described especially since gravity is a component mentioned in the timekeeping vibration by Jason Schanker.


In conclusion :

There are two different classes of phenomena occurring both attributed to time dilation. One class of phenomenon is the difference to the derived output reality, seen as difference in the rates of change by comparison, t, because of the way in which EM information is received in different reference frames. The second class is alteration of timekeeping due to an effect upon the substantial timepiece or timepieces, as discussed above. This class of alteration needs further investigation.


There is no alteration of the passage of Object universal time. The clocks are not differently time travelling. There can be no going into a substantially real future ahead of the uni-temporal -Now as only uni-temporal -Now, the current configuration of the Object universe exists. Nor slipping into a substantial past as there is no substantial past either. That it is so also prevents the Grandfather paradox. But relic EM radiation from which derived, relative Image reality can be formed when it is received and processed into output allows perception of events that have already occurred. Non simultaneity of events is due to differences in where and thus also in which configuration of the Object universe the information received.



Some stories: that may or may not assist the reader with understanding the equivalence principle and demonstration of the non reciprocity in accelerated frames of reference.


First a story will be described that provides, to one of the observers, an accelerated reference frame. It can be seen that this viewpoint is very different form an observer not sharing the same reference frame. It is a retelling. Many illustrations can be found using Google images of versions of this story, which will be useful for visualizing what is described. Though the explanation is not the same.


The lift:

Consider a lift, on the ground floor, with a glass window that looks out over the scenery outside the building. There is an observer, Oliver, outside on a servicing platform half way up a tall neighbouring building. The height of the lift is AB, floor to ceiling, and it is accelerated extremely quickly to the top of the building to a new position where its height can be described as A' B'. Oliver will see the lift move through a distance of Q. The observer inside the lift, Ian, does not see it moving as he has his back to the window. If Ian shines a light from floor to ceiling as the lift accelerates he sees it move distance AB which is equal to distance A'B'. Oliver sees it travel AB+Q i.e. A to B' . That is a greater distance than AB.


A photocell detector in the ceiling receives the light that was emitted from the ground floor, as the lift accelerated. It receives the light waves less frequently than if it, lift, was not accelerated away from the origin in space of the emitted light. Producing a lower frequency and so red shifted output. That is the relative, derived output from received input. Note: the detector is not moving away from substantial emitter object that co-moves with it. Note:the detector is not moving away from the substantial emitter object that co-moves with it.

Now think about if emitter and detector were reversed so the emitter is on the ceiling and receiver on the floor. In this case as the lift accelerates up it is approaching the origin in space of the light and the light waves originating from there are received more frequently. The relative, derived output has a higher frequency that is blue shifted. Note:the detector is not moving towards the substantial emitter object that co-moves with it.


The differences observed in light frequency between transmission up and transmission down are due to differences in rate of receipt of the EM radiation because of the Object reality that the light travels from position of emission to position of receipt and not the unchanging distance of emitter to receiver. Note the frequency of the light itself is unchanged in Object reality it is the rate of receipt producing the relative output reality that gives the perceived frequency shift. The often heard explanation that the light is loosing energy climbing out of a gravity well, and (less heard) that the light is gaining energy falling into a gravity well is incorrect. It does however seem that energy is lower because of the observed red shift and seem that it is higher because of observed blue shift. It is not an intrinsic change in the energy of the light that would be occurring without observation. The intrinsic energy of the undetected light remains the same. It can be seen that it is important to differentiate Object reality from derived output reality.


V= change of measured (fixed) position

----------------------------------------------------- That shows V is relative, derived reality

measured rate of change by comparison, t


relative V = observed frequency X wavelength This is not an expression of

relative property relative property relative property intrinsic Object reality

Another story to aid visualization of non reciprocity of accelerated reference frames follows. Using Einstein's equivalence principle the lift story can be likened to the acceleration of the Earth in an accelerated frame of reference. It is said that a man in a lift stationary on the ground experiencing gravity would feel no difference if he was instead in a lift being accelerated up by a rocket. It turns out that it would only be so for a very tiny man in a very tiny lift , as there is only very local equivalence (but that s another story.)


The Earth and a satellite: the lift story remake.

Imagine the Earth is moving in what we think of as an up direction. As a light beam is shone from the surface towards a satellite, the Earth and that satellite co-move so the distance from source to satellites new position is larger than without the movement, giving red shift of the light. Likewise a signal sent from the satellite to the Earth is intercepted sooner by the Earth as it rises towards the source making the relative linear distance the light travels shorter, giving blue shift. Receiver accelerating away from the origin source (not the moving emitter) when a transmission is sent to the satellite and receiver accelerating towards spatial origin source of the EM when transmission is received from satellite.

The comparison of the Earth and satellite to the lift story a simplified visualization demonstrating non reciprocity in accelerated reference frames. It should be remembered that the Earth is not stationary as we imagine it to be from our reference frame on the Earth. The motion of the Earth affects the way in which EM signals are received when they are leaving and entering the atmosphere.

There is non reciprocity of this phenomenon, and is in that way similar to the non reciprocity in the light in the lift story and Earth and satellite variation of it. Neither of the stories invoke a force of gravity or mention loss or gain of energy of photons as the cause of the relative perceptions, but only relative motion.


Georgina Woodward Nov 29th 2015


FQXi essay contest entries related to this topic that you might like to read

 "Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong" by Georgina Parry.

Essay Abstract
Edward de Bono’s thinking hats are ways of thinking. First his white and black hats - facts and problems are considered. Next the red hat- likes and dislikes. Knowing what must be included and what overcome, the necessary relationship of ideas to provide a working explanatory framework can be given. Having this it is possible to see some of the basic physical assumptions that have been wrong and why. That insight then allows informed consideration to be given to some interesting directions for future research and development.

"Category and reconciliation Errors" by Georgina Woodward.

Essay Abstract
While acknowledging the close correspondence of some aspects of nature and their mathematical description, attention is drawn to persistent errors in use of mathematics in physics. These are firstly category errors, not correctly differentiating or correctly identifying the elements of reality being considered. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is shown to foster a fundamental mis-identification, apparent via the associated paradoxes. Discussion of whether the Moon exists while not looking at it identifies lack of categorization as the fundamental problem. Schrödinger’s cat is examined with regard to category error. Mis-identification regarding polarized light and electron spin states is considered. Thus the need to categorize and clearly identify elements of reality under consideration is highlighted. Secondly error born inference from incomplete information, due to failure to reconcile elements of reality, and knowledge, across the Reality interface is considered. This is found in Quantum physics and has a parallel in the art of illusion. Entanglement is examined in this regard. An appeal is made to apply the Structure of reality as a framework in which mathematics in physics is restrained, unlike pure mathematics. Ending with the trick of taking a rabbit out of a hat without reality reconciliation, and after the Structure of reality diagram, shown with full reality reconciliation. The Reality in the Context of physics explanatory framework diagram is re-presented. Differentiating colors are used throughout to assist the reader. Lilac is just highlighting important points. Blue, yellow, orange correspond to those used on the structure of reality diagram provided. Showing which side the events and or elements of reality are located, with respect to the Reality interface and other aspects of reality. The actual structure of reality can not be simplified. I have attempted to make discussion concerning it and its use in physics clearer by use of symbolic notation, new diagram and color.

All images on this site and my other sites are my own creations and copyright. The explanatory framework diagram can only be reproduced for personal use and educational purposes unchanged and appearing with my name and date. If the diagram is used and modified through ongoing research the original source diagram should be cited. All of the photographs are my work and no  permission to reproduce is given. I might also begin another web site focusing on my photography and digital art which is another interest. The option to purchase images in various formats from that site might be a possibility.  (Intentions are one thing though, time will tell what actually happens.)

In the meantime I can often be found on the FQXi.org site. I  am happy to discuss my own work on my essay thread page and other related topics in the FQXi.org blog discussion pages. 



Diagrams can be seen by finding this paper on http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928