Observer - Science topic

Is the wave function Ψ in Schrödinger's equation iℏ[(∂Ψ)/(∂t)]=H^Ψ a physical entity (ontic) or a knowledge-based construct (epistemic)? Ontic views, such as Many-Worlds, imply ∣Ψ∣^2 reflects real-world probabilities, while epistemic interpretations, like QBism, suggest Ψ represents an observer's belief. This distinction impacts the interpretation of collapse, measurement, and nonlocality.

The placebo effect demonstrates significant variability between individuals, influenced by factors such as belief, expectation, emotional state, and neurological differences. This raises an intriguing question: could the observer effect in quantum mechanics also vary depending on the observer?

In quantum mechanics, the observer effect describes how the act of measurement alters a system, such as collapsing a wave function. Most interpretations treat the observer as a neutral or uniform entity, often using instruments to minimize human influence. However, if the observer's consciousness or state of mind plays any role in the measurement process (as some interpretations like Wheeler’s Participatory Universe suggest), could different observers have varying degrees of influence on quantum systems?

Key questions I would like to explore:

I am interested in any theoretical, experimental, or interdisciplinary perspectives that might help address this question. Does this idea hold merit, and if so, what methodologies could be applied to test it?

Thank you for your insights!

I have a question on general/special relativity for a realistic situation. I looked for the answer to find the answer on the internet which is summarized here, but found it hard to accept for the reason given here.

Suppose

1) There is Earth whose radius is /R/ and mass /M/, for simplicity the Earth is sphere, and no rotation and no revolution around the sun. (for simplicity, lets say the earth is a point mass and R=0)

2) There is a significantly tall mountain on the Earth whose height is /r/. There stands the observer A.

3) A satellite of mass /m/ (M >> m) is orbiting the earth at altitude /r/, i.e., it passes right through the observer A every time it orbits. On the satellite is the observer B.

4) Also suppose there is an observer at the surface of the earth, the observer C.

5) (optional) Suppose there is an alien observer D, far away from the gravity, staying still relative to the Earth, not accelerating.

What is a time delay between A and B?

The internet only has comparison between B and C. it says, with some realistic parameters, there are two effects cancelling each other, namely

a) time delay due to gravity difference (general relativity) - difference between gravitational delay for B (at R+r) and C (at R) ~ B clock gains 45 microseconds/day :: This, I understand. OK, let's call this the general effect.

b) time delay as B is fast moving against C (special relativity) - due to velocity time loss B clock lose 7 microseconds/day :: Hmm...?? Shouldn't the effect be symmetric? You may also say C is fast moving against B. I don't think this affects the time delay. -> let's call this the special effect.

=> Thus the internet concludes the net time gain is :: B clock runs faster by 45-7=38 microseconds/day against C.

I don't understand regarding b) explanation.

Let's say, for simplicity R=0, and compare A (one on the mountain at /r/) and B (satellite at /r/).

From A's point:

- The general effect is valid, but as A and B are of same altitude (same gravitational potential), there is no time difference between A and B in terms of gravitational dilation. (cf. yes, B and C (one at the surface) will have difference => Let's say this delay rate is /delta/.)

- As B is orbiting, it accelerates, and this acceleration produces the effect of minus /delta/, which is the exact opposite.

=> Thus, the clock A lags behind at the rate of /delta/

From B's point

- The satellite B is free-falling, which means B feels no acceleration (may think s/he's still or at constant velocity; locally inertial). (So B's clock ticks same as D,) and there is no time delay for B.

- The one the mountain, A, is under the influence of gravity, so the clock delays at the rate of /delta/.

=> Thus, the clock A lags behind at the rate of /delta/

However, if you follow the internet argument, the difference should be "/delta/ - (cancellation due to fast motion)" rather than "/delta/".

Which is correct? Thank you for your insight.

(further stupid question) If there is nothing else in the space, but the point mass Earth and two observers B (satellite) and D (alien), Can B and D conclude who's actually orbiting (moving)?

The Schwarzschild metric describes the gravitational field of a spherical body. The special theory of relativity, based on Lorentz transformations, has a number of experimental confirmations. Is it possible to apply Lorentz transformations to the Schwarzschild metric? This was done

for the linearized isotropic Schwarzschild metric and the geodesic equations for the resulting metric were found. When using them to analyze the frequency shift data of the Pioneer 10 signal, it is concluded that the annual frequency variations are caused by a change in the velocity of the time flow on the apparatus from the point of view of an observer on Earth.

The resulting metric is used to determine the active gravitational mass of a cloud of rarefied gas of relativistic particles.

As the velocity of particles approaches the light velocity, this mass increases indefinitely compared to their total relativistic mass. This result can be extended to relic neutrinos. Since the minimum rest mass of neutrinos is not found, this leaves open the possibility that they may make up a most of dark energy.

7) How is Einstein's world of relativity?

Abstract—If time is forced to be relative as Einstein did in Special Relativity, the Relativity Factor or the Time Dilation Factor will not be constant for an inertial frame and the relative time will be directional and dependent on the angle to the direction of motion of the frame and hence there are infinitely many relativity factors for an inertial frame. The path of light can only be altered by the change of medium. The path of light cannot be altered relative to observers, both internal and external. A vertically moving arrow in a moving train is vertical relative to all observers. A vertically moving arrow does not tilt relative to observers both on the train and off the train. A Light burst is a massless and momentumless arrow. The time it takes for an arrow to hit the ceiling is not relative. Average Relativity Factor in Special Relativity for forward and return time is not applicable for one-way motion. Einstein’s lateral plane Relativity Factor cannot be forced onto other directions for one-way motion. Einstein’s Relativity Factor that was derived for a direction orthogonal to the motion of the frame is not constant for the entire inertial frame. If time is relative, time will be directional and depends on the angle to the direction of motion of the frame and the polarity of the speed of the frame. Directional motion cannot generate non-directional time or a non-directional Relativity Factor. Time must be non-directional and hence cannot be relative. In Special Relativity, Einstein forced the lateral plane Relativity Factor onto the direction of motion of the frame by redefining the time as the average forward and backward time of a beam of light, and by forcing the average forward and backward length in the direction of motion to contract by the inverse of the lateral plane Relativity Factor. The forcing of Einstein’s Relativity Factor, which was derived for a direction orthogonal to the direction of motion of the frame, onto the direction of motion of the frame cannot make it the constant Relativity Factor for the entire frame. Special Relativity is self-contradictory. A theory that claims that the speed of light is observer independent cannot contain the terms (c-v) and (c+v). The Relativity Factor in Special Relativity contains the terms (c-v) and (c+v). The terms (c-v) and (c+v) cannot exist unless the speed of light is observer dependent. The presence of both terms (c-v) and (c+v) also indicates that Special Relativity is based on the average forward and return motion. Real-time systems do not operate on average forward and return dynamics. Special Relativity cannot describe real-time systems that operate on instantaneous time. The average has to be calculated off-line by taking separate measurements for forward and reverse motion. Average is not available for measurement. Average does not exist for instantaneous time. On-line systems do not run on average forward and return time of a beam of light. Motion dynamics of an object is not determined by the average forward and backward motion. A theory based on average forward and return time, and average forward and return length contraction cannot model real-time systems that run on one-way instantaneous time and one-way instantaneous distance. Dynamic systems do not operate on average forward and return motion dynamics. A moving object has no information on the average forward and return time and the average forward and return distance. Clocks do not run on the average forward and return time of a beam of light. Clocks are incompatible with Special Relativity. Measuring sticks do not measure average forward and backward travel distance. Time is a definition. Clocks do not determine the time. We define a time width, a day or a year, and engineer clocks to break it down into finer intervals. Clocks measure time delay, not the time itself, Time delay is independent of an instance of time. Distance traveled is independent of space coordinates. Space and time cannot be brought into the equation. Average forward and backward time and length exist on paper in textbooks, not in real-time dynamic systems. Special Relativity exists on paper as both mathematically and conceptually invalid theory, not as a dynamic system that operates in nature. The forcing of Einstein’s Relativity Factor, which is derived for a direction orthogonal to the motion of the frame, onto the direction of motion of the frame cannot make it the Relativity Factorfor all the other infinitely many directions. Einstein’s Relativity Factor that is derived for one direction and forced onto one more direction is not applicable for infinitely many other directions. Einstein’s Relativity Factor is the Relativity Factor only for the directions orthogonal to the direction of motion of the frame. There is no one single constant Relativity Factor for an entire frame. Relativity Factor is direction dependent. If time is assumed to be relative, relative time is directional. A non-directional relative time cannot be generated by directional motion. Time must be non-directional. Time dilation is not necessary in Special Relativity. Special Relativity without time dilation is possible. Time does not have to be relative in Special Relativity since the relative time can be made absolute by allowing angle dependent contraction in all directions. If the distance at any angle is allowed to contract by the inverse of the Relativity Factor at that angle, the time will be absolute, frame independent. The mass of an object is absolute and frame independent. The mass of an object is not determined by observers. Observers measure the mass. If the measured mass of an object varies with its speed, it is the measuring instrument that is speed dependent, not the mass itself. What is relative is the measuring instrument, not what is being measured. The rate of a clock is not determined by observers; it is determined by engineers. The path of a moving entity is not determined by observers. It is the relative position of the path that is displaced against the observer motion while the path remains unaltered. Relative displacement of the path relative to observers does not alter the path and the speed of an entity on its path. Observers cannot derail trains. Special Relativity does not deal with space and time. What Special Relativity deals with is the distance traveled and the time delay taken to travel the distance. The distance traveled and the time delay taken to travel the distance are independent of the coordinates in space and instances of time. Distance-delay is not spacetime. Space and time are mutually independent. Space and time cannot be brought to the equation since there is no frame of reference independent of space and time. Time is independent of space coordinates. The massless has no momentum. Light does not have momentum and does not behave as golf balls. Emission of light cannot generate momentum. There is no radiation pressure on a radiation-source in a vacuum. The radiation pressure is due to the temperature gradient generated by emitted electromagnetic waves in the presence of medium, charge particles. Light cannot generate energy, temperature, and pressure in a vacuum. In Special Relativity, the derivation of momentum and energy relationships based on radiation pressure are invalid, and the mass of an object is not relative. Light cannot be forced upon a momentum by proclamation. If the mass of an object is relative, the energy will not be real and unique. The rest energy of an object of mass m in Special Relativity is imaginary, E=j(mc)c. Light cannot be relative since both the speed and the path of light are constants that can only be altered by the change of the medium. An entity that has no standstill existence cannot have momentum. Light does not propagate relative to observers since light has no momentum. Maxwell equations cannot be transformed onto an inertial frame. The Lorentz Transform cannot transform Maxwell equations onto an inertial frame uniquely. If the Lorentz Transform is used for the transformation of Maxwell equations, the magnitudes of transformed electromagnetic fields are unbounded as the speed of the frame reaches the speed of light. Neither the direction nor the speed of light can be altered relative to observers or gravity. Gravity has no effect on light in the absence of a medium. Gravity has no effect on the massless.

How do you handle the issue of observer bias in your research?

About time dilation. We remember the descriptive diagram which includes, for example, the train which moves at a speed "v". The two mirrors installed in the train between which a beam of light circulates constantly. There is also an external observer who, according to the descriptive diagram, observes what is happening. According to Einstein this observer who is outside the train, this observer being stationary, observes that the time it takes the light to travel the distance between the two mirrors dilates! In my opinion we cannot observe a dilation of time, moreover we do not yet know what is the definition or the concept of time is!!! In my opinion the outside observer can notice that the speed of light is a constant which is, c,!! But according to me the light circulating between the two mirrors "sees" its time dilates because of the speed of the train!! thus the speed of light circulating between the two mirrors is no longer, c, but less than, c!!! And in my opinion, light has an intrinsic property which is the dilation and each dilation corresponds to a reduction in its speed so that it becomes less than, c! and in my opinion this must be the principle of atomic clocks which delay when they are moving at one speed, v!! In other words it is not gravity that slows down an atomic clock in mouvement at a speed, v !!

What people thing about this problem?

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Reply to this discussion

Vacuum

Multiverse

Entanglement

Big Bang

Motion

Following

Share

All replies (18)

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

April 17

Fred-Rick Schermer "He (Einstein) used the term Spacetime to help declare aspects about the gravitational effects of matter, in specifics the anomalies as for instance seen with the perihelion of Mercury."

Spacetime is a term in relativity theory which only indicates that the structure of space and time is related.

"Once a person accepts that matter came about in the Big Bang model, then one cannot declare at the same time that unification is real as well."

The big bang model is bullshit.

The only relevant model is about an eternal universe. Instead of a big bang only cyclic bangs happen, which affect about 10% of the mass of the universe. The restricted cyclic bangs release astronomic signs, which we misinterprete as traces of a big bang.

The cyclic bangs resolve all black holes, once every 20 billion years, and retransform their matter to new star fuel.

All arguments against that model of the eternal cyclic universe can be disproven in a factual way.

Recommend

Share

📷

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

April 17

The thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1.

Dear Fred-Rick

- in that

“…Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute."

I fully agree here but only if I understand you correctly. It is matter that is the source for spacetime; space and time are actually not part of the discussion. Rather, all words apply to the behavior of matter and nothing of these words applies to space or time. though the words are implying they are...”

- you understand what is in the SS posts above correctly, however only in certain sense, though.

To understand more it is necessary to read at least first few pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, where it is explained what are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”; and their concrete actualizations in every concrete informational pattern/system - concrete spaces and time

[ while in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

- it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter is nothing else that some the Set’s element.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

I.e. the “Logos” set elements “make something to be an information”, and any/every concrete pattern/system, including Matter, is made absolutely obligatorily by some concrete “composition of the “Logos” elements actualizations”.

“Space” and “Time” are just the “Logos” set [besides any informational pattern/system “is made” also, first of all, by “Logos” elements “Energy”, “Change”, “Logical Rules”] and their actualizations in concrete cases are concrete space, that can have any number of concrete “space dimensions” [the number is equal to number of degreases of freedom at change of state of a pattern/system], and the unique in the Set “time dimension”.

Any concrete pattern/system can exist and change, in a system its elements interact, etc., only in its concrete space and time.

So, including any “behavior of matter” is possible only in some space, Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on binary reversible logics, and so Matter’s utmost universal space has 4 dimensions – X,Y,Z are necessary – “allow” to make binary operations, cτ- dimension allows reverse binary operation.

Correspodingly the space and time intervals between elements, motion of elements in space and time dimensions, etc., are absolutely necessary for existence of everything in Matter –

- and at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter. If you don’t know these data, you by no means can describe and analyze “behavior of matter”.

Besides, really it is fundamentally senseless to ask “what appeared earlier – Matter or its spacetime”, Matter could appeared only in its spacetime, which – as logical possibility to create, and to exist of, Matter – existed as a part of the Set’s spacetime, which contains all spaces of all Its elements – and one time dimension;

- while the Set exists absolutely “eternally”, having no Beginning and no End, since absolutely fundamentally - logically - cannot be non-existent.

Cheers

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

April 18

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now where you are coming from.

The model you embrace is not the model I embrace, and this helps us understand what each of us is saying.

I do not support the cyclic universe; it was a one-time event in which the prior state broke at a fundamental level. Hence my saying that, once we have an omelet, we know that the egg was broken. There is no return to the original state available.

An eternal universe requires that we have evidence for that eternal aspect. We do not have that evidence. I will not stand in non-scientific grounds. I will only stand with my feet on the ground (even when that is on a planet floating through space) and I will not stand with my feet on space.

It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions.

Matter returning to an immaterial state is not supported by scientific evidence. At best, it can be read in models, but then we need to discuss the value of these models. I am not convinced that black holes are actually real, but that is a different discussion.

I am standing with the scientific evidence, Wolfgang. I do not extrapolate it into additional dimensions. I may not be the best scientist, but I will not stand outside the scientific realm.

Thank you again for explaining where you are standing.

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

20 hours ago

Spacetime doesn't exist. "Spacetime" is just an idea in consciousness.

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

15 hours ago

Fred-Rick Schermer "It is illogical to have matter be eternal. There is no indication that matter is eternal, rather we have a clear understanding that matter did begin with hydrogen (and helium), and how all other elements arrived in various subsequent fashions."

We do not have the faintest valid explanation about a possible creation of electrons and protons without the simultaneous creation of positrons and antiprotons.

This fact and the unlimited lifetime of electrons and most atomic nuclei leaves us with the only possible conclusion that matter must be and must have been eternal.

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

13 hours ago

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you for that answer, Wolfgang. We are not thinking fully along the same lines. That is very clarifying; after all, communication is difficult enough.

Let me find out if this is about language or if we really say something else.

I can say that the unlimited lifetime of electrons points to a potentially eternal nature of Energy. This is what you may want to say, but you placed eternal with Matter, which is in my model not possible.

If the transformation of Energy into Matter occurred some 13.8 billion years ago, then the term eternal cannot be applied to Matter. A (fundamental) transformation undermines being able to use the word eternal.

It is not known how old Energy is, so I cannot make the claim that Energy is, or is not eternal. We just don't know. Yet Matter is a result. We know therefore that it cannot be eternal; it was produced at one point in time, something new got produced from something old(er).

--

In my model, I do not need to start with the same amount of matter as antimatter because the starting point for matter begins under extreme circumstances. It is not an ordinary circumstance. Antimatter will occur, but it is a circumstantial byproduct.

We can discuss this further if you want, but the special circumstance is more interesting now.

There was a special circumstance in which the prior normal conditions of whatever or however energy existed before caused itself to move toward that special circumstance. This could have been done in a happenstance manner, or in a directed manner. But it was a step that led to a fundamental undermining, with either option we pick.

As a consequence, (some) original energy got deformed during these special conditions, and a quark soup got created (to keep the storyline simple). Then, the special conditions were reversed, everything back to normal, yet the deformed quarks were not able to return to their original state. They were and are deformed packages of original energy.

The reversal of the special conditions occurred at the CMBR, when conditions were normal again. Here the quarks aligned themselves immediately into neutrons and protons.

That is the point Zeus overthrew Cronus, if you allow me to throw in some Greek mythology as support that I am not thinking up something structurally never considered before. Where immaterial Energy was first the only circumstance for energy, with the transformation of some energy into quarks, they actually took the lead.

Matter became the center of energy (quarks in nuclei of atoms). Everything else remaining in the original energized state then falling in place, aligning themselves with the quarks in the center.

Yes, electrons then also part of the original immaterial energy, but then pulled into the deformed reality of the energized quarks, causing the tip of that iceberg to become material.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Wolfgang Konle Matter doesn't exist. "Matter" is just an idea in consciousness.

Cosmin Visan added a reply:::

Fred-Rick Schermer You really do have a communication problem. Have you tried a psychotherapist ?

One of the open (and unanswered thus far) questions in science is this: Why does the world look the way it does.

This fundamental epistemological question appears in numerous scientific contexts, some that have always intrigued me being the following: why all biological organisms have the shape they do? For example, why are there lions, tigers and bears along with humans and all other animals and plants one encounters on Earth, and have the form they do and carry out the functions they do at present and over the course of their evolution?

Why does water (and in fact any simple or complex chemical compound) have the chemical composition that it has, according to a chemist or physicist?

Why are there bosons, or any other elementary particles, above or below the scale an observer has been able to reach and observe thus far?

And more broadly: Why does the Universe (and all its elements), look to an observer like it does (and they do), and it has (and they have) evolved to exist in the manner, form and functions that it does (and they do), i.e., as it does (and they do) appear to an observer at our scale of existence and from our point of view?

These are basically existential/epistemological questions, since they involve "why's". Science usually is structured so that it poses questions starting with "how's". Yet, that doesn't necessarily imply that an epistemologist should not try to answer such "why's", without resorting to religion or untamed, undisciplined philosophy.

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Reply to this discussion

Vacuum

Multiverse

Entanglement

Big Bang

Motion

Following

Share

All replies (40)

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

5 days ago

Fred-Rick Schermer "It does not explain how all got started up, but then again I also have Energy as a given. I recognize your model as complete on its own, leaving some aspects unexplained."

Good question, an answer and some additional explanations can be given in short words.

There was no startup. The model is eternal.

The background of dark energy distorts space into an S³ structure with a space curvature of 1/R² and a volume of 2π²R³. The volume of space oscillates. It shrinks as the dark energy is charged and expands during a recycling event.

The transfer of the upload energy takes place via a gravitational interaction. With its gravitational field, each particle, including photons, creates a tiny dent in the dark energy density. If this dent moves, the dark energy has to bypass the dent. The bypass motion requires some energy, which must be provided by the moving gravitating object.

A recycling event lasts a few million years. The energy charging phase lasts about twenty to thirty billion years. We are currently in this phase.

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

5 days ago

Wolfgang Konle

Thank you, Wolfgang, I understand better now what you are working with.

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

2 days ago

Fred-Rick Schermer Universe doesn't exist. "Universe" is just an idea in consciousness.

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

2 days ago

Wolfgang Konle Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness.

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

1 day ago

It looks as that rather strange series of posts in the thread is too long already, and to point here that the thread question rather in detail is scientifically answered in SS 5 posts series on page 1, and on page 2..

Cheers

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

1 day ago

Wolfgang Konle

Wolfgang, will you please read this article in which I propose the inverse for explaining a Black Hole.

All data is the same, but the perspective is distinct.

It's like Rubin's Vase, where one can see a Vase, but another can see the Two Faces. All data is the same, but the view is distinct nevertheless.

Same for the Black Hole. I can see the Black Eye instead, with all data exactly the same, yet the perspective is what makes the view different.

There is truly no invisible mass required to explain everything we observe.

Preprint On The Scientific Black Eye

This may be my most important work. It puts me in opposition to the majority (nearly everyone) of the scientific community.

Thank you for your review.

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

24 hours ago

Fred-Rick Schermer Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness. See my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World".

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

12 hours ago

Fred-Rick Schermer

I have scanned your article about a "black eye".

But I could not identify the differences between your black eye model and the black hole model described in standard physics.

I have looked for differences in energy, mass, momentum, momentum of inertia, and external impact on the galaxy. But I could not find any substantial information about that kind of differences.

Recommend

Share

📷

Cosmin Visan added a reply

9 hours ago

Wolfgang Konle Energy doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness. See my paper "How Self-Reference Builds the World".

… Read more

Recommend

Share

📷

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

5 hours ago

Wolfgang Konle

Excellent, Wolfgang. You make me happy with that response, though I need to mention just a little more.

The Black Hole model contains an event horizon, whereas the Black Eye does not contain an event horizon.

There are two important positions which I describe as follows:

1. A Black Eye is a phenomenon like the Eye of the Storm is a phenomenon. The Eye of the Storm is really there, but it is not based on itself. The Eye is based on the wind force of the Storm. Inside the Eye, there is no wind force. Hence, it is a phenomenon, a byproduct of larger circumstances. It should be considered a major observation that physical realities can produce phenomena that then 'exist' in their larger context.

2. When a person closes an eye, then one can see what a Cyclops sees. Yet the eye that is open did not move toward the center of the face, so the reality of a Cyclops will not be achieved. That means that when an ordinary physical property among others is declared to be zero, then the remaining physical properties do not realign themselves around a center. There is no realigning. The physical reality remains intact, and the zero reality of a physical property cannot be used to declare how the standard reality is then something that it cannot be (i.e. singularities are outcomes on paper only; no scientific grounds were produced to declare singularities scientifically correct).

I do not undermine the Black Hole model other than proposing a better model in which there is no event horizon to consider. All is scientifically present in the Black Eye model. There is nothing to believe in the Black Eye model, while there is something to believe in the Black Hole model, and believing is of course a non-scientific activity.

Thank you, Wolfgang, for your reply.

Will you respond further based on what I wrote here above?

Recommend

Share

A Black Hole is accepted in science by most physicists. Not many people suspect that an alternate model is available based on the same data, called a Black Eye.

The Black Eye model does not contain a mass in the center. The model is not based on a single mass. Rather, the outcome is explained based on the entire system, and for this article that system is a galaxy.

The Black Eye model takes a system-wide approach and bases the resulting outcome on all masses in a galaxy. The gravitational forces of all masses combined establish a collective gravitational depression in the center. In this model, we are witnessing a collective result.

Meanwhile, an additional component is involved as well, not considered by most physicists to play an important role. Next to the ordinarily considered motions of matter, a galaxy as a whole is also on the move through space in a single direction. This helps to establish a special outcome, right in the center.

Note that there is no difference in data between a Black Hole and a Black Eye. It is all in the scientific interpretation that the distinction between both models comes about. Like Rubin’s Vase, one can see a Vase, or one can see Two Faces. Either way, the data is identical.

--

Most will be familiar with the Black Hole model, so the emphasis for this article will be on presenting the Black Eye model.

The starting point is not the gravitational monster itself, but rather the circumstances of a galaxy as a whole.

The Milky Way contains about 100 billion stars and all of these stars have their own gravitational force, attracting all other masses. Yet as a collective, the center of this gravitational force establishes a deep depression.

· The pull on the center is enormous, coming from all directions in the galactic disk. The explanation that not all masses move toward the center with that pulling force is due to the circular motion of this collective, countering the action. Most masses are pushed out by the circular motion and pulled in by the gravitational force.

A depression is made up of various components. The most important aspect for understanding the Black Eye model is that the center of the depression is void of materials, except for happenstance materials (more on this later).

The center exists in a gravitational balance, called net-zero, yet the depression is experienced at its gravitational maximum. That net-zero reality takes up space; it is not a singular point, but rather an area, an Eye of net-zero gravitational force.

Perhaps a surprise, but at the exact spot of first moving away from the net-zero location, all hell breaks loose.

· This sudden boundary shift is like the shift seen with the inner core of planet Earth, with the solid part of the inner core located in the center flanked right around it by the fluid part of the inner core. The center is solid, not moving internally, while the fluid part is moving wildly. There is no transition zone right at the shift of both parts of the inner core.

The same shift occurs between non-motion in center /wild motion right next to it in the gravitational depression. In the center, there is net-zero gravity, not experiencing gravity. Right on the edge of it the gravitational force is exerted to its max. There is no greater gravitational expression in the entire galaxy than right here next to the net-zero location.

What happens right next to this edgy spot is that friction has become available whereas no friction is available anywhere inside the net-zero center. As soon as that friction is available, there is motion, lots and lots of it. All tension of all masses in the entire galaxy is kept at net-zero in the center and breaks loose with a fury at first opportunity.

For the Black Eye model, one can declare that edgy spot a gravitational Wall of Motion. The photons seen in images of a Black Hole/Black Eye show us the Wall of Motion. As is well-known, we only see photons when they move in our direction. This is a location of great turbulence.

📷

In the Black Eye model, photons will in general not make it through the center because the gravitational Wall of Motion will swat them out of the way before a photon can reach the center. As such, the Eye will be black. Meanwhile, the Wall of Motion in which the photons are swatted into our direction ensures that the ring of light (the donut) is visible to us. Thanks to the way photons works, we can see the ring of light, the Wall of Motion.

· Further out, photons continue on their straight path all around the Black Eye and Wall of Motion. As long as they are not swatted by the Wall of Motion, and when photons are not aimed toward us, we do not get to see them.

Once more, the most important aspect is the center at net-zero. This net-zero location is the solid backbone of all gravitational masses moving around it. In a way, all masses are moving around the gravitational center. Each mass is attracted both by the center and by all other specific masses in the galaxy. As such, specific individual behavior by a mass can also get established in this setting.

A partial collective of masses in the galaxy, when placed in opposite location to the center, can move any single mass individually as well. That means that for a single mass, the majority of the galaxy can end up establishing the direction that pulls this mass toward the center. As a result, a single mass may end up with a specific behavior in light of the net-zero center.

📷

In a visualization with a clock, this is like a single mass located at 2 o’clock being attracted via gravity through the large center location of the clock by the other side. Yet it is not just the masses located at 8 o’clock that are doing the attracting. It is more like all masses between 5 and 11 o’clock are attracting the single mass at 2 o’clock. Masses found at 7 o’clock or 10 o’clock would also be pulling the single mass at 2 o’clock in their direction.

Similarly, the mass at 2 o’clock is contributing (its very small part) to the attraction on all these masses between 5 and 11 o’clock. It will do so as part of its majority of masses of a galaxy. A mass at 8 o’clock will be pulled by all masses situated between 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock, including the single mass at 2 o’clock.

This is therefore a story of the single mass being attracted by the many in opposite direction, while the single mass contributes itself, as part of the many in opposition, to each and every other mass in their specific opposite location.

Once more, it is the circular motion that keeps all masses where they are. The inward pull by all masses is countered by the outward motion of the circular motion of all masses.

Through happenstance, a single mass may no longer follow the established path and become attracted to the very center of all masses in the galaxy. Yet when that mass reaches the center, it will still move around it. The single mass reverts direction in a smooth but perhaps rather fast transition.

In a static view, the exact center has an attraction that is equidistant in all directions of the galaxy. As such, a single mass will bypass the center in a circular motion, reversing direction, exactly because there is no single mass of attraction. This is a collective outcome played out on an individual mass.

Interestingly, the net-zero location can be entered also by a mass, yet this cannot happen at great velocity. At great velocity, the mass will always move around the net-zero center.

Yet when a slowly and gradually moving mass enters the net-zero location, it can get stuck on the ‘wrong’ side of the Wall of Motion.

· Like an airplane flying straight into the Eye of the Storm perhaps not encountering much trouble, when flying out back into the Storm the plane better not enter it at the wrong angle where the force can overwhelm it. Indeed, it is dangerous work for these pilots.

Naturally, a mass that ‘fell’ into a Black Eye will not have a steering wheel available and will not be able to exit the Black Eye exactly as desired. In short, it will not exit in a single piece.

📷

That mass will get churned into pieces. Some of it will fly right back into the galactic disk, unnoticed, yet a good amount can move outwardly through the perpendicular spouts. These spouts are located on both sides of the net-zero location in the galactic disk, themselves also net-zero areas. What propels these churned pieces is nothing but the speed the pieces achieved from the churning motion in their direction. Once more, the Wall of Motion will not let any mass escape whole once it entered the net-zero location.

To understand how a galactic system can establish a Black Eye, it is not sufficient to understand the gravitational motions only. A galaxy, or any matter in the universe, is always on the move. There truly exists no matter at a standstill.

The entire galaxy of, for instance, the 100 billion stars of the Milky Way, are on the move collectively, moving through space in what is basically a straight line.

This is the fastest speed that all these Milky Way masses are moving in. The outer regions of the galaxy are moving at the same speed as all other masses in the galaxy in that single direction.

· Like ice-skaters on a frozen canal, each skating under his- or her own force, all are moving like a group and yet there is no group force. There appears to be a group, but a single skater can stop skating on his or her own accord, with the remainder of the group continuing. There is no group powering the skaters.

The initial ‘push’ established by the Big Bang materialization process got applied to all Milky Way energy, moving it in one and the same direction, at one and the same speed. Therefore, it appears that there is a group that is powered by group action. Yet the group action that we see, the circling of these masses, is based on gravity. For the skaters, we see the evidence of their being a group when they are jostling or helping propel each other. Yet in general, each skater skates on their own power.

· The original push of the Big Bang is not based on gravity.

The true motions of all masses in the Milky Way are more complex than considered in our Einsteinian view of matter in which gravity is the essential force.

On the one hand, there is the fastest motion of all masses moving in the same direction at the same speed at the same time. On the other hand, there is the gravitational motion indeed that attracts these masses to one another.

· A circular motion is the result of both realities combined.

In the center, there will be a net-zero location, and this will not be based just on gravity, but based on the established circular motion, which includes the single and fastest direction that all galactic matter is moving into.

--

Why did physicists consider there is a Black Hole instead of a Black Eye?

The answer lies in our achieving answers not just based on what we observe in reality, but also in our doing calculations on paper. When all the data is transposed onto paper, then one facilitates an environment in which is it easy to make a simple but fatal mistake.

Consider a piece of paper with a face drawn on it: two ears, hair, a nose, an eye, a mouth and chin.

All parts are scientifically correct.

And yet when there is just a single eye in the face, then the drawing shows us a Cyclops. It does not matter that the eye itself is scientifically correct. The drawing shows an outcome that does not corroborate what we witness in nature.

When all data about a galaxy is expressed in correct calculations on paper, then a melding of data into a single mass can still make the outcome become incorrect. The worst part of the Black Hole calculations is accepting that for the Cyclops the single eye sits in the middle of a face.

Naturally, it is easy to see what a Cyclops sees. All one needs to do is close an eye and we see exactly what a Cyclops sees.

· Yet the mistake is to think that the remaining open eye moved to the center of our faces.

The model demands therefore that all that is real remains in place, even when there is an established outcome of zero for whichever aspect that one has considered essential in a physical environment. The zero presence of any aspect does not allow us to eliminate the zero location from our equations.

· We are not allowed to play with models at will.

It is easy to undermine the Black Hole model with the Black Eye model, just like it is easy to undermine the Vase with the Two Faces. Only one outcome will be correct, and yet the data shows us two possibilities.

How to pick the best possible outcome?

The scientific weak spot in the Black Hole model is that the entity that establishes the scientific Black Hole cannot be shown itself. The event horizon prevents any fully scientific acknowledgment to ever occur. The Black Hole model contains a curtain beyond which no scientific access can be obtained, except on paper. That makes it a weak scientific model because the scientific essence is not available.

The Black Eye model does not suffer this scientific problem. All data is out there in the open. Everything is explained.

The real distinction is in the interpretation of the data.

I have a known disturbance at the output of my plant i.e. step disturbance

I am designing an observer for state estimation, and then I will feed it to the Model Predictive Controller.

I have read a lot of papers and books but everyone deals with input disturbance observer design which is generally given as; (I attached observer design equations picture).

How can I change the equation for output disturbance?

Newton's gravitational laws of inertial motion in the cosmos of the solar system lead inevitably to the sun growing into a red giant and then collapsing into a white dwarf, while Einstein's discovery of the photoelectric law of relativity prioritizes mankind as "in the driver's seat," so to speak. Einstein places mankind in the role of an observer participating in the solar system instead of merely overviewing it as a divine creation. Einstein's theories have given rise to technological advances in medicine, communications (e.g., Global Positioning Systems), space exploration, greater accuracy in observing deep space, and other inventions, you can name them!

In classical mechanics, an important principle is the principle of relativity: the physical laws are invariant with respect to the transformation from one inertial frame into another. Maxwell's equations seem to violate this principle, because they contain a distinguished speed -- the speed of light c. It was this apparent conflict between mechanics and electrodynamics that led Albert Einstein in 1905 to his special theory of relativity. By a careful analysis of the concept of time, he realized that Maxwell's equations do indeed obey the relativity principle, although the transformation law becomes more complicated (Lorentz instead of Galileo transformations).

Einstein was very aware of the problem of the speed of light inconcitensy with Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations). We was also aware of the observer effects (relative velocity effects) and he married the two, being the fist to explain the constancy of speed of light or reconcile classical mechanics with that fact.

This has been the only (albeit successful) attempt. Are you aware of any others >

If we keep in mind that R^{4}=R^{+}xS^{3}=R^{3}*RP^{1} where * means a direct product with a singularity at the zero point of a 3-dimensional Euclidean space in which the projective line is contracted to a point and take into account that the projective line RP^{1} is homeomorphic to the circle S^{1}, then from the point of view of a 3-dimensional observer 4-dimensional Euclidean space looks like a cone manifold R^{3}*S^{1}

Using the Holographic Principle’s idea that the universe is a computer simulation, I’d suggest that, in reality, there is no separation at all between anything in space or anything in time. Everything could be compared to the onscreen world of a video game. Things appear separate in both time and space but everything’s actually connected by the binary digits of 1 and 0 – even classical physics and quantum physics are connected. All couplings can be instantly quantum entangled and bypass the speed of light because the equations of James Clerk Maxwell allow the existence of both “retarded” waves traveling forwards in time and “advanced” waves going back in time. Advanced waves aren’t popular with scientists since they seem to violate cause and effect. But if time is compared to a DVD, the entire disk exists at any moment and we can say everything happens at once (this is consistent with no separation existing). Us puny humans are spared from the confusion we’d feel at everything occurring simultaneously. This results from our consciousness substituting for the laser which reads the DVD. Just as the laser only permits the sights and sounds of very brief fractions of a second to be displayed at a given moment, the mind can’t be aware of all events happening at once but only of an infinitesimal fraction of the sights and sounds on the “Cosmic DVD”.

As for the weirdness of wave-particle duality - According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."

(Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rdedition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443)

So, we need to revise Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetism by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. George Yuri Rainich showed in 1925

(Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1925-027-01/S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/)

that Einstein’s gravitational equations contain enough information about Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to make it plausible that gravitational waves also possess an advanced component. In addition to electric-magnetic duality not existing, the unification of all things in space and time means wave-particle duality would not exist in all frames of reference. It would only exist for a non-comoving observer: it could be demonstrated “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". If looked at from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (in tune with it), the weirdness of wave-particle duality vanishes and quantum mechanics becomes as understandable as the macroscopic world.

Why did you choose to become an academic? Because you're curious? Are you a good observer? Do you have good language or writing skills? Do you want to be known and read? Is there some ego involved in this choice? And can it be done to make more money?

In the past, most human studies and observations focused on the constancy of space or the constancy of the speed of light, or on the separation of gravity from other forms of energy, but ignored the possibility of their mutual transformation or the universality of their properties. When we look at mass, radiation, force, etc. as different forms of energy, and then go back to analyze the relationship between energy and space and time, it is not difficult to get such a view: energy is the main body of anything, time and space are measures of energy density.

In our observations, the black hole does not emit or reflect the information carrier that we can detect to other celestial bodies as we expect, usually the information carrier is light, so we naturally associate the orbit of celestial bodies caused by gravity, thinking that its gravity is too strong for light to escape. You may have found these theories incomplete, but I will still point out here:

First, we know that when some energy wants to travel to our observer, if the curvature of nearby spacetime is appropriate, it will travel at the fastest speed, that is, the speed of light, and its projected path in space will not change the outcome of its arrival at the expected location, only the energy density at different points on the path. To understand this conclusion, do not start with the efferent end of energy, but with the various forms of energy that reach our observer.

Second, the black hole itself is similar to other celestial bodies, and whether it collapses into a black hole before or after, its mass or the amount of energy contained in this theory is finite, and its external behavior is also consistent with the classical mechanical model. If we idealize or even fantasize it just because we can't observe it directly, this behavior is undoubtedly irrational and contrary to the scientific spirit.

Supermaterial black hole theory is a theory that studies the black hole itself, which mainly regards the energy of the black hole as a state of unstable form and easy to change form due to the change of surrounding energy density. The existence of any energy form is measured by probability, and the energy form and probability of any location will change with the passing of time. This state is produced because the energy density is too high, so that the space-time curvature near it is not suitable for the long-term existence of high-density energy forms, but because of the high energy density environment, energy has a tendency to converge into high-density energy forms.

The phenomenon that light cannot escape from a black hole is an observational fact recognized by all, but this theory emphasizes the relationship between the possibility of mutual transformation of energy forms and the degree of dispersion of energy forms and the stability of information transmission in explaining this phenomenon. In this theory, the energy density of a black hole is so great that the space-time around it is distorted so much that light cannot be sustained in this environment and must be transformed into other forms of energy that are more adaptable to the environment.

I’ve been reading an article called “The George Santos Syndrome – Why people believe their own lies”. Suppose someone makes up a piece of fiction about some part of their life. Apparently, we use the same neural circuitry to imagine something as to remember it. If we reinforce the fabricated fiction we imagined with enough detail to make it sound plausible, it will eventually be remembered as truth if we keep repeating the lie and let enough time pass.

What happens when that imagination takes a scientific turn? In trying to formulate a credible hypothesis that explains some mystery, we naturally imagine as much detail as possible and keep adding what we assume to be facts, as well as reasonable ideas, as the weeks and months and years pass. Somewhere down the path – maybe sooner, perhaps later – we might conclude that our hypothesis seems to equate with truth. Then it could well be embedded in memory as such.

Science is certainly not the same thing as lying. But there are similarities between the two processes (which may be why scientific fraud does occur sometimes). We need a way to determine whether the hypothesis developed over time is actually factual or simply a self-deception that grows stronger and stronger as years (and decades) roll by. That method is, of course, to conduct experiments. But are experiments the final answer?

According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity – Albert Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". So the experimental results (which are potentially interpreted in different ways) are valid. But they’re only valid in one frame of reference – from the human perspective of the scientists, who say length contraction occurs. Looked at from the equally valid universal frame of reference, there is no length contraction.

Some people will say the universal frame is irrelevant because we’re human and the human perspective is the only thing that matters. Some will reject the whole discussion because they disapprove of the example using Special Relativity. But the point is that experimentation doesn’t offer a final answer. There is no final answer and we just have to do the best we can to solve the mysteries of the universe. We grope our way through all the theories and experiments, and hopefully make a little progress in the search for truth. To put things another way – quantum mechanics’ Uncertainty Principle has expanded into an Uncertainty Principle affecting all of science. The indeterminacy doesn’t rule just the subatomic realm in the early 21st century. It also rules the macroscopic Space Telescopes, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and every detector or laboratory.

I’m currently working with a Zeiss observer 7 microscopes, aiming to achieve optimal clarity with the images. However, I’m facing challenges in obtaining high quality, clear images which can be observed in the attached image. I would greatly appreciate any insights recommendations, or best practices from research expertise with similar imaging setups.

If I connected my voltmeter leads across the left-hand crossbar in the top figure, the voltmeter would presumably read an e.m.f of "E"?

But then, what would my voltmeter read for the left-hand crossbar in middle and bottom figures?

Also what is the Relativistic expression for the emf in the moving crossbar?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below we have a straight-wire "crossbar" and a U-shaped wire. A uniform magnetic field B is directed out of the paper.

Here, in the top figure, with the crossbar moving to the left, touching the U-shaped wire, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the left-hand crossbar, as indicated.

In the middle figure, with an observer moving in concert with the moving crossbar, we have, by the relation (v x B), an emf appearing across the right-hand crossbar.

In the lower figure, with an observer moving to the left, at half the rate of the left-hand crossbar, we have, by (v x B), an emf appearing across both right and left hand crossbars.

We assume the correct answer is that this is true according to Einstein's special relativity.

Experience is the food of the mind.

Research and observation is the existence of the universe.

Nothing is out there without the observer.

Fine if the universe exists without the observer. For whom does it exist? You can't cut the universe off from the observer. After all, that's why we're here, for the universe to exist. This universe out there outside our brain doesn't have the form that our brain presents to us. There is no light and colors without the eye, hearing without the ear, taste without the tongue, touch without the body. Outside of our brain there is only frequency energy that without the conversion of frequencies from our brain into something else none of this would exist. Without a brain we can't even perceive energy. We live in a matrix of our senses. We are the very nature of energy, which lives through us.

Okay, let's get to the hard part. Do you at least understand that the world we live in doesn't exist without your senses? So without us how can there be anything imaginary that our brain creates? Fine the frequencies exist, but who do they exist for?

What is it, and where does energy come from; which designs, constructs and moves frequencies molecules atoms everything? Is it God?

Everett's many world interpretation and the development of the macroscopic decoherence concept are thought by many as the best answers to the interpretation issues of quantum theory i.e the peculiar observer dependece of experimental results, the intepretation of probability-based inferences

Classical derivations of the Lorentz transformations is given using time dilation and length contraction in [LT].

Observers in $F$ and $F'$ (we also switch to $S$ and $S'$ ) obtain the first and the second equation. As observers do not agree on some events (for example about simultaneity, the length of the rod, ...), do we need some explanation to substitute the first equation into the second equation?

Example 1.

Suppose that $S$ and $S'$ in a standard configuration and that origins $O$ and $O'$ coincide at moment $t'=t=0$ and that we have two identical rods of lengths $l'$ an

in $S'$ and $l$ in $S$ respectively. Of course $l=l'$.

(A) Observer in $F$ concludes that $l=\gamma l'$ .

(B) Observer in $F'$ concludes that $l'=\gamma l$.

Here gamma is Lorentz factor.

Hence $l'=\gamma ^2 l$ and therefore $\gamma =1$. Thus if we substitute the first equation into the second equation we get contradiction.

By the example, we wont to illustrate that we can not combine conclusions of observers in $F$ and $F'$ in some situation.

There is also a debate on researchgate [TP-RG].

There are huge literature and In discussion we can cite much more related relevant papers.

[LT] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivations\_of\_the\_Lorentz\_transformations

[SD]Satadal Datta, A Revisit to Lorentz Transformation without Light, arXiv:2212.03706v1 [physics.class-ph]

[GA] Vasco Guerra and Rodrigo de Abreu, Special Relativity in Absolute Space:

from a contradiction in terms to an obviousness, https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0603/0603258.pdf

[Re] D. V. Red\v zi\'c, Direct calculation of length contraction and clock retardation, Serb. Astron. J. No 190 (2015), 49 - 58 UDC 52–334.2

[TP-RG]www.researchgate.net/post/Why\_is\_a\_debate\_about\_twins\_paradox\_so\_bad

I have been using a sliding mode observer (as shown in the attachment). I have designed the gains with the assumption that the derivative of the error (between the state estimates and measured states) would be zero and the error would be equal to zero. Can someone help me in proving the stability of this particular SMO?

Please provide some specific suggestions in this regard.

How else can we explain :

Imprimis : That a light ray has different lengths for different observers. (cf. B.)

ii. That the length of a light ray is indeterminate? - both gigantic, and nothing, within the Einstein- train embankment carriage : (cf. B.)

iii. That a light ray can be both bent and straight. Bent for one observer, and straight for another : (cf. C.)

iv. That a light rays "bends" mid-flight in an effort to be consistent with an Absolute event which lies in the future : (cf. C.)

v. That these extraordinary things -- this extraordinary behaviour, (including the "constancy of speed") are so that the reality is consistent among the observers -- in the future. (cf. D, B, C)

vi. That light may proceed at different rates to the same place--- wholly on account of the reality at that place having to be consistent among the observers : (cf. D, A)

---------------------------------------------------------

A. --https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book

B. --

C.--

D.--

I have got two questions and before asking them I would just like to tell you the ways and cues that the human brain uses to make up the perception of time.

1. We use images and our brain actually in some part holds these images, of the past. We differentiate between the past and the present at least through visual stimulus by referring to these images and the difference between past and the present.

2. This includes all sorts of perceivable change.

When considering the Casimir effects, vacuum fluctuations, ..., the temperature can be confused by depending on spacetime + observers (Hamiltonian, accelerated observer, ...) and classical definition by entropy and energy as T^-1 =∂S/∂E. In quantum mechanics, when we define a system in the state of ρ=e^{−βH^,} the density matrices denotes the expectation value of such system is considered as thermal expectation value; this considering involves time!

When an observer is inside a defined system or accelerated, the Hamiltonian changes!

The reason I'm quite sure the described curiosity exists in Nature, is the following :

Imprimis: we can synchronise clocks either end of the rod.

Thereafter, we can introduce a timing off-set, such that one ray is emitted after the other, from each end of the rod, by the mechanism of an automated timer.

Now, with this initial-setup, it is absolutely certain the rays will arrive simultaneously to an off-centre position, in the stationary frame.

We can make an event contingent on the arrival of these rays to this off-set position simultaneously. This event is triggered only by the simultaneous arrival of these rays to this off-centre position.

It follows that in all other frames, these rays -have to- arrive to this off-centre position simultaneously, or we would be in the ridiculous situation of having the event trigger for one observer but not for another, this event being "at the same place".

Hence when we assume a frame in which the light rays are emitted simultaneously from each end, they still -have to- arrive to this off-centre position, simultaneously.

Is it correct to say that Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be said to be upwardly compatible with Newtonian mechanics because the inertial force of F=ma works when the observer is accelerated?

Harvard Dingle's point is correct, but it was wrong to stop at criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity, and we had to evolve Newtonian mechanics.

Cf. "Einstein's light-clock."

If we transfer the argument to the Einstein- train embankment thought experiment, in which two rays are emitted simultaneously from each end, then because these rays have to reach the middle M' simultaneously, the aft ray has to travel a greater distance, and the fore ray a lesser distance to reach M' on the carriage, as it journeys to the right.

Cf . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxfxhJBm4g

And Figure 1 (below.)

So the resultant lengths traveled, by the aft and the fore ray will be different in the "really moving" frame, to the same frame considered to be "stationary" -- in which both aft and fore rays will have the same length.

Since the carriage can journey to the right at near light speed, so then the distance the light ray has to traverse becomes indefinitely large for the aft ray, and indefinitely small for the fore ray.

And so the length of the aft ray becomes indefinitely large, and the length of the fore ray becomes indefinitely small.

Reversing the direction of the carriage, switches which ray is indefinitely long and which ray is indefinitely short.

And so, by the Relativity of Motion, each ray, aft and fore, has an indeterminate length.

And since the train carriage has an indeterminate absolute speed (due to the Relativity of Motion,) it follows that the lengths of the optical rays inside the carriage, are indefinite. They can both be anything or nothing.

Since these light rays can have enormous lengths-- galactic distances, or nothing, it is not hard to understand why these light rays reach M' simultaneously, on the moving carriage, with ease.

And so,-- is this why all trains everywhere, have the light arriving at the middle M or M' simultaneously ?

Cf. below, Dingle--Michelson Morley experiment. Case of receding mirrors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For the case (below) of mirrors receding uniformly away from the lamp, it is a certainty, that, while we are stationary with the lamp, both rays will make it back to the lamp simultaneously.

Next we journey to the right and look at the happenings at the lamp. Once again (obviously) the light makes it back to the lamp simultaneously.

Now we project "real motion" into the system, by saying we are "stationary" with the man moving to the right. We see the apparatus as a whole journey to the left.

Now we witness the top ray bending as it navigates its path to the left and up to the receding mirror, and back down again to arrive simultaneously at the lamp.

If you deny it, you will have to explain how this top ray navigates to the left, and upward, to the receding mirror, without bending, in its effort to get back to the lamp simultaneously with the the other ray, as it must.

You will also have to demonstrate how it is to do this, without bending "in flight".

And it can only bend "in flight" if it knows it is headed to an absolute event that lies in the future, and for which it must reach (at all costs,) in order for the reality to be consistent among the observers.

The former is the notion of the "Relativity of Simultaneity". This is not actually the case. Instead, there is a tapestry of Absolute events, in the manner of Newton.

The proof of this is given in the Einstein train-embankment thought experiment. Cf.

Here, Einstein says the man on the moving carriage at M' would receive the light rays -one after the other.- But due to the "relativity of motion" due to this symmetry-- he would actually receive these rays simultaneously. The event at M' (or M) is Absolute. (This was noticed by A. A. Robb the "Euclid of Relativity," and is why he entitled his book "The Absolute relations of Time and Space".)

In the latter, it is the notion that Special Relativity (ie. the relativity of motion) can be generalised to "relatively accelerated frames". This is not the case, as proved here :

This error was also noticed by V. Fock, and stated in one of his treatises :

"We call the theory of Einstein space the Theory of Gravitation, not the " general theory of relativity ", because the latter name is nonsensical."

Then there are well known objections by Dingle, Barter and Bergson to do with clocks that run both faster and slower, and rods that are both longer and shorter.

We have yet to investigate the observations of Dr. Lynch. Cf. Western Mail & South Wales News, Thursday, May 5, 1932

Are there any other provable errors in Special Relativity, or in General Relativity (theory of Gravity) ?

Einstein tries to justify (below) that an accelerated reference frame (train carriage) may be considered "at rest" but in an equiv. gravitational field. However, the frame it is moving relative to would then be without an equiv. gravitational field, and so two frames are not exactly equivalent, as they were when we were dealing with uniform motion.

Also, in the below, he confuses the situation by having the equiv. gravitational field in the embankment frame. But it is the carriage where the force is experienced, and so this is where the an equiv. gravitational field would be. The other frame (the embankment,) accelerating away (relativity,) would be the one, in this case, without the equiv. gravitational field.

So "Relativity of Motion" does not transfer to accelerated motion, and so there is no "Generalisation" of Special Relativity. Accelerated motion has to be considered as absolute, and not "relative", because the two frames (moving and still) are not exactly equivalent. (One of them has an equiv. gravitational field in it, and the other doesn't, or vice versa,).

And so, surely it has to be the case, that the "General Relativity" is only a theory of gravity, not a generalisation of "The Relativity of Motion" (Special Relativity.) ?

-----------------------------------------------------

Cf. Relativity. The Special And General Theory. 1920 Methuen & Co Ltd.

Is there a misspeak in Einstein's train and embankment thought experiment, as described by Einstein in the 1952 edition of his book "Relativity, the Special and General Theory" ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose you could argue that Einstein meant it, loosely speaking.

But since the whole of reality hinges around this conception, it is probably not remiss to bring it up.

On page 26, Einstein says, in relation to the famous train and embankment thought experiment --see below. "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A."

But if we compare this statement with the animation found here (scroll 1/4 way down) :

we notice that as far as the observer moving with the train, situated at M', is concerned,--- according to what he can possibly know (he can't know of things distant to him) -- the light flashes reach him simultaneously, and that is all he can know. What I mean to say is that statement "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A" is not true, (as it is worded.) He will see no such thing. If this observer were moving, say to the left, within the carriage, then it is true that "Hence the observer will see.." -- but instead he is fixed in the middle at M', of the moving carriage, and from his perspective he will only know that two flashes reach him simultaneously.

So either Einstein's description of what the observer in the carriage would see is wrong, or the animation showing the light rays reaching the middle of the carriage is wrong.

I say wrong, but really this can be thought of as "loosely speaking"- but it is important to be clear about this, for the reasons outlined above.

In one of A. A. Robb's treatises, he says : "Thus, according to the view here adopted, the only really simultaneous events are events which occur at the same place."

And the two light rays meeting in the middle of the train carriage (in the above example) will always be "at the same place" and will always be "simultaneous," and this goes for what-ever frame. They can't be "simultaneous" and "at the same place" in one frame and not in another.

This is a very confusing subject, and I have been confused before, so I apologize in advance, if the above arguments are error.

Hello,

I am trying to design a nonlinear observer to estimate states for adaptive cruise control purpose. The first problem I have faced was to find an appropriate model of the vehicle( longitudinal or lateral ) with tyre forces being unknown(to be estimated). Where can I find a useful model that describe the vehicle dynamics including adaptive cruise control equations.

Thank you.

Why isn't the velocity of light given by the speed of the observer plus the speed of the light (addition of velocities)?

Why does the light ray slow down and compensate or speed up and compensate for your motion, so that it is always travels at the speed of light? notwithstanding your motion?

In short, what is the mechanism that means the velocity of light always remains the same, irrespective of the motion of the torch issuing the light ray?

Who can tell me why Dingle's objection to Special Relativity-- the same one that appears in Barter's book "Relativity and Reality- a re-intepretation of the anomalies appearing in the Theory of Relativity" is in error?

This objection in gone into in some depth in Barter's book, in a chapter called "Some Paradoxical Result of Reciprocity".

And is the following :

The problem is : to one observer the other appears to have a shortened rod, and to the other observer, the shortened rod is with the first observer. They can't both be right.

The same is true of time. To one observer the hands of the other chap's clock run slow, while to other observer the hands of the first chap's clock run slow. They can't both be right.

In both cases above we have a perfectly symmetrical experimental setup-- each observer is moving uniformly with respect to the other observer. All is identical.

-----------

or as Dingle puts it :

" special relativity unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A — which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible."

-----------

My view is that Dingle and Barter are not wrong--- but that a new way of looking at it is required. I think this way is "intersubjectivity". It's the observers that have to be brought into the problem, just as they were in Quantum Theory.

Cf. Introduction here : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary-Stephens-3

Like solve_ivp or odeint in python, which shows warning messages if there arises any discrepancy during runtime, in Boost odint we need to create observer for that. I just want to know is there any predefined observer exist to handel all kind of errors and warnings message, or we have to creat for our own?

I have checked in boost odeint there are odeint_error.hpp and exception.hpp, but they can't be used directly.

Who can tell me why Dingle's objection to Special Relativity-- the same one that appears in Barter's book "Relativity and Reality- a re-intepretation of the anomalies appearing in the Theory of Relativity" is in error?

This objection in gone into in some depth in Barter's book, in a chapter called "Some Paradoxical Result of Reciprocity".

And is the following :

The problem is : to one observer the other appears to have a shortened rod, and to the other observer, the shortened rod is with the first observer. They can't both be right.

The same is true of time. To one observer the hands of the other chap's clock run slow, while to other observer the hands of the first chap's clock run slow. They can't both be right.

In both cases above we have a perfectly symmetrical experimental setup-- each observer is moving uniformly with respect to the other observer. All is identical.

-----------

or as Dingle puts it :

" "special relativity unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A — which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible."

-----------

My view is that Dingle and Barter are not wrong--- but that a new way of looking at it is required. I think that way is "intersubjectivity". It's the observers that have to be brought into the problem, just as they were in Quantum Theory.

Cf. Introduction here : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary-Stephens-3

I want to use Kalman filter to estimate battery parameter and observer for state estimation together (SOC)

The measurement problem in quantum physics shows that an observer can manipulate the outcome of experiments studying the behaviour of light (Young, 1802 double-slit experiments) and control whether light will manifest as a particle or a wave (Bohm, 1952; Cho, 2017; Kocsis et al., 2011). This shows that consciousness may be compatible with light or may be able to communicate with light (Kroeker, 2019). I was wondering if consciousness could be quantized if the observer effect experiments were reversed engineered to measure the behaviour of consciousness, rather than the behaviour of light?

Discuss...

Is the -apparent- progress of light, along the left and right-hand limbs, different for different observers?-- in the standard arrangement for the Relativity of Simultaneity, as suggested by the animation in "apparent pogress.docx" .

And if so, just considering the right-hand limb, why can't we place an event E, such that, for one observer the light has already reached and enveloped it, while for another observer, the light has yet to reach it, -- as viewed by these two different observers?

Is the -apparent- progress of light, along the left and right-hand limbs, different for different observers?-- in the standard arrangement for the Relativity of Simultaneity, as suggested by the animation in "apparent pogress.docx" .

And if so, just considering the right-hand limb, why can't we place an event E, such that, for one observer the light has already reached and enveloped it, while for another observer, the light has yet to reach it, -- as viewed by these two different observers?

If we are to correct the long-range action of the global inertial frame of Newtonian mechanics, shouldn't we make it the close action of the relative velocity of light?

The Hawking temperature $T_h$ is proportional to the surface gravity $\varkappa$ which, in spherical-symmetric case, one calculates on the Killing horizon. This temperature is very small but where? at infinity? Then if we use the formula $T\sqrt{g_{00}}=const$ then, one obtains infinity temperatures near the event horizon. Help me with this question please. I thought that one measures $T_h$ near the event horizon and the temperature near the horizon is small. Or my opponents are right and this temperature is measured in infinity?

I am working on observer based active fault tolerant control( Fault detection and isolation (FDI) scheme) for handling sensor faults in a system. The system has also a dynamic disturbance component also which is difficult to have a proper observer design to design the FDI of the FTC scheme. I would like to know the effective methods to handle such situations with observer based FTC schemes. How to handle the issues of disturbance modelling and threshold selection in such schemes? Also what could be the limitations for such schemes?

Apropos: the Andromeda paradox.

Can anyone tell me which of the below, if any, describe the arrangement in the Andromeda paradox?

For event 1 I am assuming this to be 'the decision' to launch the fleet, and for event 2 I am assuming this to be a later event signifying that the 'fleet is deployed'. Event 2 occurs after event 1, of course, for the Aliens.

According to the paradox, the light from these events reaches the observers in such a way that event 1 is seen first by one observer, and while event 2 is seen first by the other observer?

If that is what the paradox is saying, can anyone explain (ideally with an animation or a picture) how this happens?

Apropos: the Andromeda paradox.

Can anyone tell me which of the below, if any, describe the arrangement in the Andromeda paradox?

For event 1 I am assuming this to be 'the decision' to launch the fleet, and for event 2 I am assuming this to be a later event signifying that the 'fleet is deployed'. Event 2 occurs after event 1, of course, for the Aliens.

According to the paradox, the light from these events reaches the observers in such a way that event 1 is seen first by one observer, and while event 2 is seen first by the other observer?

If that is what the paradox is saying, can anyone explain (ideally with an animation or a picture) how this happens?

How to calculate the gain matrix of Luenberger /state observer?and also what is the role of eigen values during the mathematical modeling?

The current system have 2 input and 2 controllable states. The system is observable.

We have developed an arrangement in the Relativity of Simultaneity framework that must be wrong, as we cannot have a situation where two events, situated at the same place (event E, and an arrival of light event) are switched in time-order, for two different observers moving uniformly (or non-uniformly) relative to these events.

Is it that the placement of event E in animation Figure 4 is somehow not allowed?

Is it that it is not always possible to make two events separated in space simultaneous? by suitable choice of the motion of the observer? (cf. Einstein's train gedenken experiment.)

If anyone can pinpoint the error, much appreciated.

Vide : "Short Precis" below for desciption of new arrangement and animations.

See also question: