Curious results from interferometer experiments

[Obvious Leo]

The thought experiment in which you remove gravity but leave everything else the same only really makes sense if you assume that gravity is a phenomenon which is entirely unconnected with every other aspect of physics.

That's why I couldn't get my head around it, although it wasn't for want of trying. I could almost imagine turning time off and simply freezing the universe in place but turning gravity off was a conceptual bridge too far. Gravity ties in with EVERYTHING.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, I'm thinking everything would just disaggregate.

- the expansive nature of space

The expansion of space is a metaphorical construct and not a physical one. Since space has no physical properties it cannot physically expand.

Many smarter people than me have variant views on this, so what do I do? For now, space makes sense for me so I'm sticking with orthodox models for now, even if based on incomplete perception.

That is, unless the expansion of space (dark energy) is gravity.

This is a better way of looking at it because it makes the notion of dark energy unnecessary.

I have wondered about the connection between dark energy and gravity. Since space is constantly expanding (as per orthodox physics) then it would naturally be pushing to expand into every object. Space pushing to press into objects but thwarted by mass. I've wondered if that's what gravity is - the pressure of expanding space pushing into large bodies, that spreads outwards as an ever weakening field.

However, we might feel the difference in some way beforehand since we would no longer be travelling in an orbit but in a straight line to oblivion.

Does that mean you've changed your mind about the 8 minutes?

Nope. Eight minutes to see it. I'm not sure about other effects we might sense with the change of gravity in that 8 minute time frame.

[Steve3007]

Leo:

Yes, and as I said, even if we assume that gravity doesn't tie in with everything, we still have to ask what we mean when we propose "turning off gravity". It can only really mean assuming that the law of gravity doesn't apply, in which case the obvious next question is: "Which law? There's more than one to choose from." In the video, the answer seems to be Newton's law not Einstein's. If we removed Einstein's law we'd be removing the concept of acceleration, just as if we removed "Leo's law" we'd be removing time. But if we stick with removing Newton's law then we're removing an outdated law that's already been replaced.

It's an interesting thought experiment, I think, because it makes us consider these things.

-- Updated Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:41 am to add the following --

Greta:

Nope. Eight minutes to see it. I'm not sure about other effects we might sense with the change of gravity in that 8 minute time frame.

If we believe what the latest laws of gravity tell us, then not even gravity can propagate faster than light. So if the sun's gravitational influence could somehow be removed in less than eight minutes, the Earth would still orbit around the place where it used to be for 8 more minutes.

[Bohm2]

Yes, and as I said, even if we assume that gravity doesn't tie in with everything, we still have to ask what we mean when we propose "turning off gravity".

Obviously it's just a thought experiment but maybe one might alternatively think of what would happen if the Higgs field dropped to zero (e.g. no mass) etc. Either way, I can't see any possible way for the universe to just "freeze" with no gravity, especially given what we understand on the relationship between gravity and time dilation (e.g. stronger the gravitational potential, the slower time passes).

[Obvious Leo]

But "within" the same logic one can express Time as an external force akin to gravity which is the "process" of bringing events in collusion which preempts time as being a side effect of process per se, i.e., not local to a process.

GR certainly shows us that time is as local as local can be when it passes more quickly on the electron than it does on the nucleus it "orbits". I'm certain it's even far more local than that and that it obtains the full 20 orders of magnitude below this to the Planck scale but even at the emergent sub-atomic scale the local gravity/time equivalence must surely be the underlying mechanism which accounts for the electro-weak and strong nuclear "forces". Unless of course we're willing to swallow the cock-and-bull story that these "forces" have a provenance which lies beyond the physical universe, along with the hundreds of mathematical constants we've had to invent to make them work.

If anybody wants to buy this idea I have a hardly-been-used Eiffel tower for sale. The little old lady who owned it only ever used it to go to church on Sundays.

what would happen if the Higgs field dropped to zero (e.g. no mass) etc.

For a start it might help to banish the idea completely from our minds that the Higgs field is in any sense a physically real thing. It is a mathematical tool being used to describe an observation, nothing more, and so are any other fields we might choose to invent.

Regards Leo

[Bohm2]

For a start it might help to banish the idea completely from our minds that the Higgs field is in any sense a physically real thing. It is a mathematical tool being used to describe an observation, nothing more, and so are any other fields we might choose to invent.

Of course that is true but also irrelevant. What is your definition of a "real" or "physical" thing in physics as opposed to a mathematical model of it? Are particles any more "real"/"physical" than fields? Of course not. After all, we can observe the effect of these fields directly (see image below). What about the wave function? Is it any less physical/real than fields or particles? Why or why not? Moreover, the issue of mind-independent reality is a non-starter, since all we can ever hope are good predictive mathematical models of it. It's not as we can literally "see" mind-independent reality.

Thus, in physics, the propositions must invariably be mathematical expressions and physicists believe that physics has to 'free itself' from ‘intuitive pictures’ and give up the hope of ‘visualizing the world'. Steven Weinberg traces the realistic significance of physics to its mathematical formulations:

...we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensations

I mean, what other options are there? And I'm not denying that there is obviously something more to "reality" over and above our best mathematical models of it (after all we're just linguistic chimps and not Gods). Either way, we can't get to the "real" world in any other way except using mathematics. So physicists treat these mathematical objects as provisionally "real" and in fact, more real than our ordinary common-sense naïve notions. Consider Einstein's EPR 'criteria of reality':

If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.

Gisin uses a somewhat similar definition

A theory is realistic if and only if, according to the mathematical structure of this theory, the collection of all physical quantities written in the system unambiguously determines the probabilities of all possible measurement outcomes.

And those or something similar are what we can ever hope for, nothing more.

A possible definition of a Realistic Physics Theory
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uplo ... -Gisin.pdf

[Mechsmith]

Leo, We cannot all agree on gravity as an attractive force as per your post #171

[quote="Greta"]Yes, I'm thinking everything would just disaggregate.

[/quote=Greta]
I have wondered about the connection between dark energy and gravity. Since space is constantly expanding (as per orthodox physics) then it would naturally be pushing to expand into every object. Space pushing to press into objects but thwarted by mass. I've wondered if that's what gravity is - the pressure of expanding space pushing into large bodies, that spreads outwards as an ever weakening force.

Greta, I also have been wondering "suppose gravity is a compressive force" Gravity is attempting to force matter into the space (volume) within the atom (classical) or into the space (volume) vacated by quarks etc. (QM) in their incessant motion.

I am not ready quite yet for prime time but my first hypothesis is that gravity as seen by us is actually a reaction from the formation of old Minkowski's space-time. Reaction, in this case would be used in the sense that a rocket is the reaction of the fuel burning or the kick of a rifle.

The worst thing is now I have to come up with a seething sea of somethings but I think that it might be easier to find them than to find Bill Gaedes ropes or the attractions at a distance of Newton.

IF the pressures within the atom are less than the pressures betwixt the galaxies then the field would flow towards matter in a similar manner that the energies of wind flow towards the beach. It is just a different way of looking at gravity and I sure can't defend it yet but-----------

Happy thoughts, M.

[Obvious Leo]

Of course that is true but also irrelevant.

Do you really believe that making a distinction between what's real and what's not real is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe? May the good Lord Jesus guide and protect us all from your kind.

It's not as we can literally "see" mind-independent reality.

Indeed we can't. We have to figure it out using the tools of human reason and making a distinction between reality and illusion strikes me as a likely place to start. We start by stripping away the ******** and then examining what's left. Fields, forces and particles do not MAKE reality, they merely describe it. The map is NOT synonymous with the territory.

physicists believe that physics has to 'free itself' from ‘intuitive pictures’ and give up the hope of ‘visualizing the world'.

Quite so. Physics is a faith-based discipline which needs to be believed in. I'm a non-believer, in case you hadn't guessed.

Either way, we can't get to the "real" world in any other way except using mathematics

On a scale of ten, how well would say this policy has been working out for the past century? Are we getting closer to an understanding of reality or are we being drawn steadily further and further away from it? Your logical positivist doctrine is more than just a chilling and nonsensical ideology, my friend, it can't seem to put a score on the board either and is simply piling one absurdity onto another. Ptolemy will no doubt be weeping tears of joy at the mathematical virtuosity of modern physics because it's following the methodology he established as a template. However I don't regard it as nothing more than a trivial inconvenience that this mathematical extravaganza is modelling a universe which makes no sense. You may call me a recalcitrant contrarian if you wish.

If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.

How the hell can you observe a system without "disturbing" it? This is the entire problem of physics. An observation is a disturbance by definition because an observation is a construct of the consciousness of the observer.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein

Regards Leo

-- Updated April 9th, 2015, 10:11 am to add the following --

The worst thing is now I have to come up with a seething sea of somethings

There's nothing wrong with the seething sea of somethings concept as long as it only operates at the Planck scale. The thing to bear in mind is that at this scale matter does not exist so your somethings should be thought of as quanta of pure energy which behave in such a way that matter emerges from the process. Obviously since energy quanta are massless this process must be occurring at the speed of light. It's an exquisitely simple idea because it needs only a single dimension to work in but when this single dimension is a fractal one modulated by gravity it immediately gives reality all the subtlety and nuance we observe.

Regards Leo

[Mechsmith]

Yes Leo, It can only operate at the Planck scale. I have noticed in the BB theories they generally treat gravity as an emergent property. I can only hope that somebody has done the math because I am using it. Somebody that realizes that mass and weight are different.

Anyway using gravity as my main tool, with a bit of help from Newtons inertia, I can build a black hole. With a black hole bereft of mostly all baryonic matter the laws of gravity are suspended as either kind of gravity requires motion or space to work in. With Planck size what evers able to exist in only one or two dimensions I can put this black hole anywhere within the universe I want to. Since I have a galaxy handy I suspect that there will be enough matter, mass and energy to build it with. You notice that I am a politically correct recycler. This gets rid of any creation events. It also gets me a whole bunch of seething somethings to use in a quantum theory of gravity. I don't need another Universe either. I am just temporarily pulling a few dimensions out of a small portion of the one we have. Mechanically

Thanks for listening, Have a nice day, M

[Obvious Leo]

Yes Leo, It can only operate at the Planck scale.

The way I see it Einstein gave us TWO great unifications in physics. The first was E=mc² which implies that matter is just little bits of energy configured in a particular way. We already know that E can only travel at c so where is the E inside matter travelling to? Since it isn't jumping out of the atoms and flying off into the distance it can only be travelling into the future, like every other physical thing in the universe is. However it was the second of Einstein's great unifications which gives us quantum gravity and thereby unifies EVERYTHING. T=1/g. Get rid of the three superfluous and entirely metaphorical spatial dimensions and all the ducks line up in a neat little row.

Regards Leo

[Bohm2]

Your logical positivist doctrine is more than just a chilling and nonsensical ideology, my friend, it can't seem to put a score on the board either and is simply piling one absurdity onto another.

What logical positivist doctrine? I didn't know I had one. Let me ask you this question. What entity/property used by physics/physicists would you construe as meeting your definition of a 'physically real thing' as opposed to a merely a mathematical model of a physical real thing?

[Obvious Leo]

we can't get to the "real" world in any other way except using mathematics.

This is the central plank of logical positivism as expressed in your own words. They could have been written by Ptolemy himself.

What entity/property used by physics/physicists would you construe as meeting your definition of a 'physically real thing' as opposed to a merely a mathematical model of a physical real thing?

Energy and Time. That's it. Strictly speaking I equate energy with information and I equate time with gravity but in the simplest sense the universe is just a journey of information within time. That's all.

[Steve3007]

Leo, I don't think I've ever really got to the bottom of your objection to mathematics. I can see why you might dispute the logical validity of some specific mathematical methods like, say, re-normalization. But if mathematics is simply a logically rigourous language for expressing deductive arguments, what's wrong with it? Why is it any different from expressing a similar deductive argument in, say, English?

Obviously a lot of mathematics is hard for a lot of people to understand. But so is a lot of English! Why would that, in itself, affect its validity?

-- Updated Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:41 am to add the following --

I know you're fond of saying things like "you can prove anything with mathematics". But that's not actually, literally true, is it? Clearly you can't['i] prove anything with mathematics.

-- Updated Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:09 am to add the following --

When Bohm2 says:

we can't get to the "real" world in any other way except using mathematics.

you seem to interpret that as him saying that mathematics is the real world. So you presumably see him as doing the old "confusing the map with the territory" thing. But he's not saying that is he? All he seems to be saying there is that we have no way of knowing the "real" world other than through some kind of logically structured language. Surely that's true, isn't it? In order to express relationships between concepts in the real world we need language, and we need that language to be logically consistent.

You've talked a lot about your objections to many of the concepts of modern physics on the grounds that they appear to violate common sense. But I don't see why that is the fault of mathematics. I think that's just shooting the messenger.

-- Updated Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:10 am to add the following --

(Sorry, my text formatting is all over the place today.)

[Obvious Leo]

I don't have any problem with mathematics, Steve, as long as we understand what any system of mathematics is capable of doing and not capable of doing. The mathematical language of physics is specifically designed to model observations and unless we understand what an observation is then the mathematics can tell us nothing about what it is that we're observing. In other words the mathematics of physics is modelling effects and not causes. I'm not suggesting that physics can be done in any other way and I feel sure I've stressed this point often enough. I maintain that deducing causes from observed effects is not a physical problem at all. It is a metaphysical problem and thus distinguishing the real from the metaphorical is paramount. This was my starting point.

However in my philosophy I go further than this because I reckon the mathematical tools of Newton cannot model causes because it makes the false a priori assumption that the universe is a created entity. The classical mathematics of Newton can only model linearly determined events and a self-causal universe determines itself non-linearly. These two world-views are utterly incompatible and mutually exclusive and they simply cannot be represented with the same mathematical tools. Non-linear determinism can only be modelled with the tools of fractal geometry and I make no claim to knowing exactly how this should be done. However this means that the problem of physics is both metaphysical and meta-mathematical. Interestingly Einstein became convinced not long before he died that he'd been using the wrong mathematical tools all along but he didn't get far with the idea. He could have saved himself a lifetime of frustration if he'd listened to Poincare in the first place instead of to Minkowski. Henri knew Albert was barking up the wrong tree.

Regards Leo

[Steve3007]

Yes, I've been talking to you long enough now to have a pretty good idea of what you think physics is doing. That's why I think the posts where you appear to be simply rejecting the tool of mathematical description wholesale can be misleading. Obviously fractal geometry is a mathematical tool like any other and follows the same logical rules as the rest of mathematics, so clearly you don't reject mathematics.

I also think it's wrong to say that there are a set of Newtonian mathematical tools that are exclusively "linear" or that make any assumptions about the universe being "created". I take your point about the Newtonian world-view characterizing the laws of physics as being superimposed on the world. But the mathematics used in those laws is just as non-linear as anything else.

I don't know on what evidence you decide that there is a fundamental divide between the mathematics of fractal geometry and all other mathematics and I don't know in what sense you think it might be possible to develop some kind of new set of mathematical tools that are wholly separate from existing mathematics. Surely one of the fundamental principles of mathematics is that it must be a logically self consistent system, isn't it?