Fred Champion

There is no real thing such as a "point object". Without something with volume, there is nothing to observe. To simplify separation, measurement is made with a yardstick (or an acceptable alternative). The yardstick is made of real things which have volume and the scale on the yardstick is in terms of the real things which make up the yardstick. As you say, the volume will be determined by the thickness of the line, and the minimum thickness of any line will be a single unit (atom) of whatever makes up the line. If we accept that the speed of light is constant everywhere and in all directions we must accept that the medium through which the wave propagates (space) is not in motion (or that space in its entirety moves as one body, perhaps within some other medium which we have not discovered). Space is the constant frame of reference for light. Without this basic concept there is no reference for the apparent relativity of changes in moving objects (as in thought experiments using clocks). I hope you will not expect me to argue for or against any particular part of any model or theory for which I have no interest. I see that you have some passion for the subject, however I am totally neutral on whatever details are within. As I have already said, I reference the Pauli exclusion principle as the basis for a expecting a unique state for every object, nothing more. Observation seems to match this expectation. Do you think there is a better basis for unique states of matter?

Of course length is not "real", not a "physical reality", not a phenomenon. It is a term we use to describe the separation between two objects, the two objects on either end of a "line" of objects. That separation is in terms of the volume occupied by objects. The concept of a line is useful in geometry, but there is no line (as defined in geometry) existent. A "real" line would be a group of objects (with volume) arranged "next" to one another. I will not define the terms "straight" and "curved". I accept that you are correct about real and fundamental except when we discuss state. Place and volume are fundamental. Space has volume and place in space is absolute. Einstein told us this (in a round about way) when he said the speed of light is constant (in space). The units we use are arbitrary, but this is true only because we have discovered no smallest unit of volume and currently have no accepted way of connecting position (of objects) to place in space. The fundamentals of space is another topic, not directly a part of this thread.

I understood your "challenge". It was not obscured. I chose to avoid it. I am not a fan of any of the quantuum or particle physics. They may provide a convenient platform for some who want a more or less unified mathematical model, but I believe they do little to describe reality. I think any system that includes time as a fundamental physical variable is fundamentally flawed. I will not get into models I think have little value. By your own definition, the parameters you reference are computed, not observed. "Time rate of change" of anything requires requires multiple observations and a reference to change in other objects, not simply an observation of a single state of an object. How do we define a "second"? We count and remember (record) changes in something, perhaps the swings of a pendulum or the emissions of a specific atom. Whatever method is used it is always an arbitrary metric and is consistent only under very specific conditions. The key term is "arbitrary". Arbitrary is not fundamental. To me, the state of an object - note the singular term "the" - is not computed over multiple states. It is what is presented by the object and can be observed. We may observe place and volume and in order to know that we observe something specific we must know what we observe. State reduces to what it is, where it is and the volume. If the "what" is more than one unit, the where and volume become somewhat subjective. The point of eliminating composit objects and reducing observation of state to a single unit is to demonstrate that there is no dependence on nor inference to time at any fundamental level. State is the way is "is", not the way it "was" or the way it "will" be.

Length is not a phenomenon either. It is just a convenient concept for geometry. When we speak of size, we must speak of volume. Volume cannot be reduced to any lesser or more fundamental units. Many may confuse the common geometry of 3 intersecting planes (a human invention, not something discovered) with the reality of the single dimension of space we call volume. Yes, I am saying that space has only one dimension and that dimension is volume. All normal matter occupies volume. I am not aware of anything that exists in any format other than volume. As for the "long list" I suggest that any parameter that is not presented (and thus cannot be observed) within a single state of an object is not existent. Anything that we describe as relative (or in relative terms) or for which we require multiple observations (to recognize change) to compute its value cannot be considered fundamental. The "long list" may include many useful concepts, but concepts are not phenomena.

I must have not understood your question. I stated: "The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects." You asked "Did Pauli claim this?". My answer is I don't know whether Pauli himself considered the principle to be applicable to objects (or ordinary matter) generally. Today the principle is considered to apply to ordinary matter. The objects we can observe are made of ordinary matter and so I think it is correct to say that the principle applies to the states of such objects. Again, my point was to show that the state of any object has no "time" component and is not dependent on any "time" action and thus "time" can not be infered from the state of an object. Your statement that the principle "applies throughout time" assumes time as a phenomenon. My argument is that there is no evidence of time in any given state of any object. The inference we make over a set of states is because we recognize the changes in those states. That inference is possible only because of intelligence (memory). I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience time. Now, if stones do not experience "time" what makes us think that there is anything to experience? If there is anything to experience, everything, intelligent or not, should experience it. Unless you can show that "time" is some sort of actor or reactor, I say it just isn't there.

The point was (is) that the state of an object provides no link to any sort of deduction about time. The formal statement of Pauli that I have seen does not include "at the same time", or any other reference to time, because a reference to time is neither necessary nor proper. In order for the state of an object to link to time it would have to include the recognition of some sort of change (velocity, momentum,etc) and change is recognized only over two or more states. A correct description of state will include only one state (the one described) and not others. The state of an object is much like the photo of a clock. While a series of such photos may imply an intelligence (with the necessary memory) capable of recognizing change, it does not imply any phenomenon beyond that, and a single photo of a clock provides no indication of change at all.

Why not have a little fun and consider an alternative to the big bang? Big bang doesn't describe a beginning, just a change in state. But before the bang? What caused the bang? No answers. Posit the universe consisting of only bosons and objects made of bosons. Sort of like today, only different, and, like today, not in a steady state. Something changed, just a bit, just enough to cause fermions to precipitate out of the bosonic environment. No need for a singularity. No need for a particular central starting point. Just a process sort of like condensation in the atmosphere, happening everywhere more or less all at once.

I think you mis-state Pauli. The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects. The passage of time is not part of their states, and what we call a particular time is just a reference to their state. That state is only "now" and, since that state includes a postition in the universe and the objects' relationship to everything, it is unique. That state, for the moment it is recognized, requires no reference to anything other than the state of the objects included; there is no need of any reference to change or the "passage of time" or "time" in the state. I don't see the deduction you describe.

I suggest you consider how light is produced at the source. If we could reduce a source of light to a singe atom that atom will produce a discrete "pulse" of light at each excitation/de-excitation cycle. That pulse will be produced at a particular location and will radiate out from that location. This is true for that pulse and every subsequent pulse emitted. If the source is moving each pulse will be emitted from a different location. The changing location of the emissions is what produces the Doppler effect, not any distortion in the emission. So, you should not expect to see the speed of light vary with the motion of the source. If the pulses are emitted at regular intervals (a specific frequency) the motion of the source will not change that frequency. An observer may see the frequency of the pulses change as the motion of the source changes, but the speed of the light from each pulse reaching the observer will not change. We may liken this to someone flying over a lake dropping rocks into the water. Each wave produced will progress through the water at the same speed, but from a different location. The rate at which the waves reach an observer will be a function of the location of the observer relative to the flyer's path, the speed of the flyer and the rate at which the rocks are dropped. You may also note that as far as we know all objects are in some sort of motion, so it will not be possible to establish an experiment with a source and an observer which are not in motion.

I invite you to comment on my post #288 under the thread "Basic understanding of time" in which I posted: "I conclude that there is no phenomenon which we can call time."

New here. Wow, 287 posts on this topic. Confession: I read the first 5 pages and the last page. I hope I do not repeat what others have posted. I believe that what is usually called time is an artifact of memory. I think that saying this is not equal to saying that it is an illusion. Several posters connect time with change. Recognition of change requires memory, or another accepted record in place of one's own memory. I see the "passage of time" as recognition of change, but the "passage of time" is not the same as "time". Einstein is quoted as saying that "time is what we see when we look at the face of a clock". I accept that he was correct. The face of a clock provides us with the state of an object (two objects if you prefer, the hands) relative to the state of another object, the face. What we see at any moment is just the face and the hands. In order to infer the passage of time, we must have some memory of what we saw at another moment. Additionally, we must have some confidence that we can tell which of the two observations was taken first. (Two photos of a clock showing different positions of the hands requires assumptions to infer any passage of time). Our experience tells us that the two observations cannot have been taken concurrently. (Two objects, the two sets of hands - one set in each photo - cannot have the same state). So, what we see when we look at a clock is the state of the clock. Einstein said the state of the clock is time. Now, all objects have only one state, their current one. Objects do not have a past state or a future state. The current state of all objects is only "now", and thus time has only one state, the "now". I acept that we don't actually experience anything independent of the observed objects which we could call time. We only experience the objects. I conclude that time (not the passage of time) is the aggregate experience of a particular state, per Einstein: our experience of the face and the hands of the clock. To be a bit more clear, I conclude that there is no phenomenon which we can call time. The term "time" is a shorthand way of describing our recognition of a particular state of existence. Way too many words. Wrote this on-line. I hope it is not too disjointed.