Reality in the context of Physics

Click here to edit subtitle


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

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 cannot 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.) 

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 site. I  am happy to discuss my own work on my essay thread page and other related topics in the blog discussion pages. 

Diagrams can be seen by finding this paper on

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