Fred Champion

Well, you have objected to the way I think of a frame of reference and obviously I think the way I think of what that term means is totally consistent with current thought in physics. I think the definition in Wiki is weak, but I can live with it understanding the source and the target audience. I do not have a physics book before me and even if I did I would be reluctant to say that any given textbook would provide an official definition. You asked me for a definition and I gave you one. If you know of an official definition of frame of reference please share it with us and cite the source. Unless you can and will do that, you will have presented nothing other than objections. Please, tell us (me especially) how, in your words, "we define a reference frame". I am most interested in learning how you think the definition I provided and the way I think about the term should be considered such an unacceptable "alternative" that I should be shuffled off the thread into the speculation section.

The volume we choose for consideration is the frame of reference; the choice of a coordinate system is part of the methodology to be applied within that frame as is the decision of whether to include acceleration. For any portion of our universal frame of reference, we may construct any number of imaginary reference frames (such as inertial frames). It all dependes on how we choose to define them. We do not have the ability to re-define the universal frame of reference; it is what it is. Are you saying that mainstream physics includes a notion that the universe is not all that there is, or that we are able to observe something that is not part of the universe or that we can observe outside the universe? I suspect at least part of the problem here is that you accept that a frame of reference is the volume and the methodology combined whereas I consider them to be separate. I just have difficulty thinking of a room and what goes on in it as other than different things. I will conceed this: I accept that a specified frame of reference is the combination of a specified volume and a specified methodology. Will that satisy?

I think an acceptable and all-inclusive definition of a frame of reference is: a specified volume within which properties of objects may be observed. I ask readers to note that there is no speculation in stating: 1) the space which contains the universe is our one actual frame of reference. 2) all other reference frames other than the one universal frame of reference are imaginary (geometric or mathematical constructs) 3) all imaginary reference frames are constructed as a limited part of the one universal frame of reference. 4) the action of constructing an imaginary reference frame establishes a direct translation to the one universal frame of reference and to all other imaginary frames of reference. The method or methods used to conduct, record and describe observations in any frame of reference may be established by the observer.

Do we not already have a de facto global coordinate system for the universe? We may not have a zero point of origin (I mean the point where the singularity was just before or just after BB got started) to use as a zero, but the cosmo boys tell us any point is just as good as any other for a zero and any orientation of "horizontal", "up" and "forward" is as good as any other. Pick one and it works. All results can be seen as frame independent ultimately. For any frame, there will be a translation to any other frame. I can accept the explanations found in Wiki. I believe they are commonly accepted. I even accept the references to time as long as one recognizes that time is imaginary, just as the frame of reference is imaginary. I am a bit disappointed that Wiki doesn't explain that frames of reference are geometric or mathematical constructs. I hope the people at Wiki expected that to be generally understood.

Yes, most discussions on what we know and can know eventually reduce to an a priori notion of some sort. I'll say this, not as a defence of philosophy in science, but just as an observation: the PH in your PHD stands for what? Yep. And what is that PH that you are a doctor of? Yep. That sheepskin says you understand the PH. I suggest that a person's PH about or relative to a given subject to be that person's approach to the subject. We cannot approach any subject without a PH about it. That PH may not be fully developed or codified, but it will be what it is. So, the way you approach science is your PH of science and it will determine the way you go about it.

I suggest that the one and only "true" or actual frame of reference is the space that contains the universe. Every other frame of reference is a limited part of that one. The meaning of that is that every frame of reference we construct is directly connected to every other frame of reference we construct and any given frame of reference does nothing to isolate, physically, any object in or out of that frame of reference to any other object. Any frame of reference you may construct may be "valid" for the experiment you prepare. The important thing is to present the results clearly as being from that frame of reference and not necessarily as universal. I expect this will seem obvious once you consider it, but I have seen some that just don't seem to get it.

Well, perhaps I miss something. I believe we were considering the interval between the pulses to be the frequency. A remote observer may see the frequency change, depending on the relative motion between the observer and the source, but this is not due to any change in the frequency of the emissions at the source. In the case where there is no increase or decrease in the distance between the observer and the source there will be no apparent change in frequency except when both the source and the observer are accelerating.

No, there "are" not. They do not exist. They cannot be discovered because they are not here, there or anywhere. They must be constructed in the mind which means that they are imaginary. Geometric and mathematical constructs are imaginary, not physical, constructs. What is true is that it seems possibe to construct an almost unlimited "number of inertial reference frames" within the common geometry and mathematics. And I believe you are correct that this is supposed to be a physics - not a geometry or math - discussion. Peace.

In order for causality to be directly dependent upon time, each particular cause must have a time component. It doesn't. Each domino will fall if and only if another domino falls upon it. Of course there is always the question of what made the first domino fall. Memory is not a cause; I never claimed that. We recognize now and we remember what we call "earlier". What we call time is just that perception of change. Without memory there would be no perception of change, nothing that we could call time. I know what fatigue is; I have worked directly with it at Lockheed. At each cycle, a small change occurs. There is no time component. The loading and subsequent failure will occur after a number of cycles independent of the frequency of application, given that thermal loading is not induced. Yes, I understand that "real" is a hotly debated philosophical term. Of course I don't see my view of real as arbitrary or in conflict with prevaling physics. To me, what is real is what "is". I do think some confuse what is real with what we can know. I suggest that our capacity to know it or about it is not a prerequsite for something to be real. I can see no value in any model in physics which fails to describe what is. A description of what has been and predictions about what may be observed is not good enough. A good model should recognize the capacity to, and limits of, observation and the potential distortions implicit therein.

No, pressure does not exist. Pressure is a description of the interaction of real objects. Descriptions are not objects. Change occurs when an object interacts with its surroundings. Action sufficient to surpass a steady state threshold must be input into the object. Change happens because some external influence causes it to happen. This is not time dependent. Ever hear the statement "an object at rest ..."? The quantuum boys tell us change happens in units, not continuously, not half way and then halfway again. There is no time component in change. Change is physical, time is mental. Jeez, I'm beginning to think this is some sort of test to see how may ways I can say it. Two physical macroscopic objects will not exist in the same spatial position.

NuTTyKid "wanted to know what would be the perfect frame of reference that could be used as the origin for motion ." My post was meant to encourage him to convince himself that there is only one actual frame of reference. Any other frame of reference must be imaginary (a geometric construct). John Cuthber rightly makes the point that "Whatever is true of your ship is also true of his so his "best" frame of reference is just as good as yours." This is true, but more than just "as good as"; his actual frame of reference is the same as yours. Swansot's point is absolutely right also and should help NuTTyKid lead to the realization that unless unless observation is obscured in some way, it is universal. What one sees, all see, albeit potentially distorted. To me, the utility of isolating observation into a frame of reference other than the one universal frame of reference is in resolving (explaining) the distortion.

Prove to yourself that there is only one actual (and thus perfect) frame of reference by considering this question: You are moving along in what you call your frame of reference, your spaceship. You have your spacesuit on so that you can breathe and still have the windows in the spaceship down. (You do like to ride with your arm in the window, right?) Light is produced from a source somewhere outside your craft. You may observe the light enter your craft through one window and exit through another. Does the light change its behavior in any way as it passes through your frame of reference?

One could produce a clock and define what is observed as any term one might wish. The common term is indeed time. But, I suggest you consider that we also define love, hate, fear, mind and many other "things" which do not "exist". The only way we can clain that anything exists is that the thing presents some evidence of interacting with its surroundings. The list of defined things includes many that do not. Time is one that does not. Tell me why we should accept as existent anything which requires intelligence in order to manifest itself. No, time is just another artifact of memory. You post above: "That is because you were accepting the common notion that time requires change, or is associated with change." Not so. I have stated that time is what we refer to when we invoke our memory of multiple observations. Your own post here affirms that change does not require time to occur. Were there to be no change, there would be no different observations, no memories and no concept of time. Time is a product of the mind. Show me where time is manifested in non-intelligent objects. Change, through interactions with an object's surroundings is manifested of course, but not time.

What theory of the "creation" of the universe is not speculation to some degree?

Magnetism is not far from magic-tism. The only force we understand really well is the push (attempt at displacement). Explanation of force in a field as displacement attempted by a flow of field particles usually is not received very well. Magic rubber bands are more fun and apparently more believable.

Any measurement is always dependent on the receptor to some degree. Simplest example: if we try to measure the photoelectric effect using cardboard we won't succeed even though the cardboard will give evidence of light. Less simple example: flowers present different colors. Same emissions, different receptors, different effeects. What determines the difference, the emitter or the receptor? I suggest the emitter probably does produce its emissions continuously, at least over some number of those emissions. We accept that light from a particular source will have a discernible frequency. So what is it that cycles to produce the frequency? I suggest that each cycle may be thought of as a "pulse", and the individual pulses are the actual emissions. My understanding of the "packets" concept is that they are thought to contain light of a certain frequency. Now, unless these packets contain more than one pulse (more than one cycle) they would be just the one pulse. If they are just one pulse, what is the notion of a packet? If they do present as a series of pulses (Do we know how many would be in one packet?), then either the emitter produces that series continuously, over some interval, or it produces a single emission that induces a cyclical response in the receptor. We have to account for our perception of frequency. The doppler effect argues for frequency produced at the source. The quantized effects argue for a receptor dependent response.

I hope you realize that neither the Big Bang or God explanations actually involve "creation". I don't know what other theories you refer to, but unless one of them posits a something-from-nothing event (or events) they will actually refer to a transformation rather than a creation event. I prefer a "great precipitation" process rather than a big bang transformation. Much easier. And there is always the argument that an actual infinite cannot be.

I suggest you investigate whether or not you can get more energy out of a magnet than it took to make the magnet. If you can, you will have solved the perpetual enengy problem.

Photoelectric effect is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Solar power and stealth technology. Can't imagine what's next. Seems to me that the response being dependent on frequency (different frequencies for different materials) reinforces the idea that the measurement is receptor dependent. Do we have a basis for comparing responses with a specific frequency across multiple materials that does not provide just a null? "At most one". Ask a tricky question, get a tricky answer. Conservation of energy?

Such as the number of atoms that will fit between two objects? Atoms are real things. Your choice of a real thing (a particular atom) to use as your measure may be arbitrary, but the measurement taken will not be; the measurement will be in terms of a real thing. If you are tempted to express distance in terms of the "diameter" of an atom (or anything else) remember that diameter is not a real thing; it is a geometric construct and, as all geometric constructs, that "measure" will be in terms of some real thing which has volume. There is ample evidence (even in these forums) that geometric constructs such as distance, length, etc are considered real things. Just consider how many today accept that space is 3-D. We even have some saying that we live in 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 time. How sad. Space has only 1 dimension and that is what we call volume. Everything that we refer to as normal matter is experienced only because it occupys volume. Volume cannot be reduced, nor expanded, to anything else. It may seem like a small point, but ignoring it leads to confusion. Yes I do assert that time does not exist. Science is discovery. Time has not been discovered and cannot be discovered; it is a product of the mind, not a real thing. We discover only real things. How do we discover that something does not exist, by not discovering it? No, we cannot discover something that does not exist. What we do, at best, is counter any argument, or prove false any evidence, that the supposed thing does exist. My argument thus far has been that the only evidence for the existence of time is our recognition of change. If time were a real thing intelligence would not be prerequisite for its application. Not sure what you mean by "influence". The only things that influence any other "thing" are the objects in the thing's surroundings. Action and reaction? Distance is a measure, commonly a geometric construct. Difficult to see how a construct (a not-real thing) would interact with real things.

The commonly recognized three spatial "dimensions" are imaginary constructs convenient for a particular geometry (the geometry of three planes intersecting at equal angles). One can form consistent geometries with 4, 5, 6, and 7 spatial "dimensions" as well. The term "dimension" in some models may not refer exclusively to spatial constructs. Qualities of objects may be called dimensions. For example, the color of one's hair (especially if it is green or hot pink) may be an expression of identity.

I suggest the reason we find (measure) the energy from light quantized is because the receptors we have for gathering that energy will respond to light in only a quantized manner. Consider an experiment in which we have a source emit a single photon. If we set up receptors around the source, how many receptors will recieve enough energy to respond and let us determine that a photon was actually emitted?

I suggest if you look at Post #14, you will determine that I did not introduce Pauli. I responded to what I thought was a mis-quote of Pauli. If StringJunky was not refering to a generalization of Pauli, what was he refering to? I think I do understand the ramifications of Pauli as it is generally accepted today. I'm not sure what an exact quote of the "official" Pauli statement would add to the discussion. The concepts presented by it have been extended such that it forms a basis for understanding uniqueness of state. I see no value in discarding current thought about it by returning to an original statement or reducing the usefullness of it by limiting it to details in a particular model. And by the way, I make no "scientific" assertions. Science is discovery. I claim no discovery, except perhaps the understanding that time is not scientific. Time cannot be discovered, it is an invention (artifact) of intelligence (memory). I suggest to you that any model, mainstream or not, must require the objects under consideration to be identifiable. Identity requires uniqueness. State is part, a large part, of identity. "If", one of our most beloved concepts; the line separating sci from fi. Karma runs over dogma. Feynman attacks Maxwell's demon with a ratchet. Besides that, the demon would have the information. Identity is preserved. That is not what I was saying at all. Without a reference to place in absolute space and a smallest unit of measurement, the separation between two objects can be determined only in terms of other objects. The meter you refer to does not exist. There is no such "thing" as a meter. A meter is a shorthand way of describing a specific number of objects placed next to one another in a "straight" "line". The objects (perhaps atoms) chosen to be placed in the line will form your yardstick. Since we are considering "real world" and not geometry, the separation will be in terms of objects. The objects occupy volume. The separation is thus in terms of volume. If you wish to refine the separation further, use smaller objects.

I don't see where I raised any "issues". Do you think that Pauli being generally accepted as the basis of our understanding of matter occupying volume is an issue? The only issue I see is that you are disappointed that you have not been able to engage me in a discussion of the details of a particular model. I freely admit that I am no expert on Pauli. I have not and will not study it further. Well, maybe, but not much further. Theory and models beyond what is generally accepted relating to normal matter hold little interest for me. Of course the two atoms are unique. The very fact that you can identify them as different objects makes them unique, and the reason you can identify them as different objects is because they occupy volume. Now I know that many people (perhaps not you) will find it odd for anyone to say so, but I think it is quite remarkable that we can actually distinguish among objects. It seems to me that Pauli and many others have found it interesting too. Again, it is generally accepted that the exclusion principle is the basis for our understanding of how matter occupys volume. Well, one observation you may make immediately is to recognize that the reason you are able to sit in your chair (I assume you are seated) is that matter occupys volume. We do not set the thickness. Our choice of the material for our yardstick will determine the thickness. For our yardstick made of a single row of atoms, the thickness of the line will be determined by the volume occupied by one atom.

I think one of the biggest problems many people have when considering light is that light is modeled as a particle in particle physics and that particle is called a photon. Now, treating a photon as a particle may be fine in particle physics, where everything is treated as a particle (whether or not it really is), but carrying that concept outside the models of particle physics leads to confusion. The term "photon" refers to a quantity of light, the smallest observable amount or "unit" of light. Why there is a smallest observable quantity of light is explained by the way we observe light. The observation is accomplished only by interaction with matter. That interaction produces a reaction, a change in the matter, when light encounters matter. We actually never observe light; we recognize a reaction. Why there is a smallest reaction is probably best explained (in very general terms) by recognizing that in every sort of change some external activity provides additional excitation up to a threshold amount at which the matter reacts. (Consider increaasing pressure on the trigger of a weapon. There is no observable reaction until the pressure reaches and then just barely overcomes the resistance of the mechanism and the hammer falls.) We have no way of determining whether the threshold in the matter is reached in one step or many. Instant change (a single step) may not seem reasonable, but our observations are made with matter that reacts in the same way as the matter we are observing. When it comes to determining what is real and what is the result of limited ability to observe, we are left with Hume's notion that we can know only what we experience.