Science, Physics, Relativity, Faq's and Feedback
Roughly 23 years ago I started with "My Homepage" and again it is time to give an overview of what I have done.
- 17 Years ago I wrote my first Historical Overview. To read it go to: Historical Overview #1
- 10 Years ago I wrote my second Historical Overview. To read it go to: Historical Overview #2
- 4 Years ago I wrote my third Historical Overview. To read it go to: Historical Overview #3
- 3 Year ago this one is my fourth Historical Overview. To read it go to: Historical Overview #4
This seems a rather short time. The primary reason is my current interest in Numerical Realtivity. For an overview of the documents I'am studying read this: Numerical relativity documents
- 2 Year ago this one is my fifth Historical Overview. To read it go to: Historical Overview #5
- This one is my sixth Historical Overview. The main reason of this review are current physical discusions related to SR and the behaviour of clocks.
Contents
Yesterday I went to a lecture with the subject Artificial Intuition.
During this lecture the following proposition was raised: "The human mind is an algorithm". There was also an answer to this question: "Yes, but we do not know what the algorithm is".
A search with Google gives the following two hits:
IMO the question "The human mind is an algorithm" is in some sense a self fulfilling question.
This is a paraphrase to the concept self fulfilling prophency.
An example of a Self-fulfilling prophecy is (Wikipedia): "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences".
My interpretation: If you read the same proposition often enough, we start to believe it is true.
Part of the problem is: do we really understand the proposition.
|
It is a question which contains two concepts which are not clearly defined i.e. "human mind" and "algorithm".
This question is very close to the question: What comes first: Physics or the laws of physics. You can also rephrase this sententence as: What comes first: Physics or mathematics. Also here both concepts are not clear.
The problem is we don't know what the laws of physics are. The laws of physics can be described as description of certain physical processes.
When you accept the evolution theory than you know that processes in general are subject to change and as such that in some sense the present state of the universe is caused what happened in the past, and has no relation with any form of mathematics.
2. Processes and Systems
During the lecture, in relation to the human mind, the two concepts 'processes' and 'systems' were mentioned.
The human mind, our brain, is a chemical or physical process. If you divide the mind in different sections with different tasks it becomes a system. Maybe one of these sections is typical capable to do arithmatic and perform certain tasks steps wise, but that does not mean that our human mind is an algorithm. An algorithm (a mathematical program) is something typical belonging to a computer which has to be defined by a human.
There are many different types of processes: Optical processes involving light, chemical processes, electrical processes, magnetic processes, gravitational processes, celestial mechanical processes and biological processes including human behaviour. All these processes involve different materials and the behaviour, how these processes evolve, depend about their immediate surroundings.
In medical science specific twins are studied when most of their life they lived in separation. This allows you to study the influence of the environment.
In general many processes are interrelated and can influence each other.
A typical example of a process is a clock. Also a clock can be considered as a system, each part performing a different task, in total defined and constructed by humans. The internal functioning can be described by mathematics. The general way to test if the mathematical equations are a correct description of the operation of a clock, is by performing experiments.
There are two types of clocks based on lightsignals.
- In the first type the direction of the lightsignal is in the direction of movement. This type of light signals is discussed in the article: "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein. For a review see: Article Review "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"
- A second type of clock is when the light signal is parallel to the direction of movement. In that case the mathematics which describes the behaviour of the clock is accordingly to Special Relativity.
Detailed experiments should show that this distinction is correct.
3. The first postulate of SR
For a definition of what means "postulate" see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom for a definition.
In this document we can read:
-
"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." An axiom is about mathematics, a postulate or hypothesis is about physics.
For a definition of what means "Scientific method" see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
In this document we can read:
-
It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
The reason why I write this is because the concepts: Physical Law, Scientific Law, postulate, hypothesis, Scientific method, Scientific process and Scientific theory are closely interrelated. One of the binding issues is an experiment.
Even more important is what comes first: a postulate or an experiment.
This can be of a problem, because what is the strategy to follow if an experiment is not in agreement with a postulate. Part of the problem can be that the postulate is not clear. Specific related to the issue how and when is the postulate applicable.
This problem is also discussed in the usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research.
For a summary of the discussion where this specific subject see the following links:
The definition is: "clocks always run at their normal rate, anything else would violate the first postulate of SR".
This definition is not very clear. A more accurate definition is:
"clocks, with different speeds, each run at their normal rate, anything else would violate the first postulate of SR".
The problem is that in order to have clocks with different speeds always accelerations are involved and this is excluded in SR.
See also
In the same discussions you can also read: "modern physics requires precision in thought and word."
That is true for all forms of human communication. The problem is, in the above mentioned article "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies", that the definition of "The first postulate of SR" not clear is. Part of the problem is to what extend postulates and hypothesis can be used, as an integral part of the scientific method.
I'am not a medical doctor. But if I observe medical science it starts from a model of the human body as a whole system, subdivided in different part. Part of the medical science is to study how these different parts are interrelated in a healthy body. The next step is to see what happens, when partly through external influences, when we get sick and what can be done to go back to a healthy situation. Most of this research is done by means of experiments.
Like in physics, often we don't know what the actual route of cause and effect is, because there are more possiblities. In those situations more accurate experiments are required in order to find the best cure or solution
In the whole physical arena we can have suppositions, assumptions and presumptions and call them postulates or hypothesis, but they all require the same rigorous prove by means of experiment, in order to integrate them in one 'complete' story.
4. The experiment with two moving clocks.
For more detail see: Article Review "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"
Consider a rod with length l, with at both ends two identical clocks which innerworkings is based on light signals.
Consider a one dimensional grid, which at equal distances has a clock.
Both the rod and the grid we can call a physical reference frame.
Both the rod and the grid are initially considered at rest and all the clocks are synchronised. For the details see above mentioned document.
From a physical point of view the rod is considered a space-ship, with an enigine. As such the rod can move and can travel forward and backward along the one dimensional grid or track.
The experiment is rather simple. The engine starts and the rod starts to move, its speeds increases, untill the engine is stopped. The engine is set in reverse direction. The engine is started again and the rod starts to move and now in speeds decreases, untill the engine is stopped.
During the whole trip the observer in front of the rod, when ever his position coincides with a clock connected to the grid at rest, writes down the number of counts of the clock at rest and his (moving) clock. The observer at the back of the rod does the same. At the end of the trip they compare the results. What is most remarkable; The results are the same . Secondly: the number of counts off the moving clocks are lower.
What can we learn from this experiment
- First of all that a moving clock runs slower than a clock at rest.
- Secondly that the two moving clocks attached to the rod stay synchronised during the whole trip. The reason is that the physical cause for both clocks to run slower is exactly the same during the whole trip. The physical reason is that the distance travelled by the lightsignal, between two counts, increases, for a moving clock.
- In a more global setting the moving rod can also be considered as a moving grid in one dimension. All the clocks in this grid stay synchronised when this grid moves along the grid at rest.
We can also perform the same experiment in opposite direction, that means we start with the engines in the opposite compared with the first experiment. The results will be the same. Both observers will write down the same numbers and the moving clock will run slower. That means the result is symmetric
We can also do the experiment in a slightly different way.
We start with the same experiment as above and we stop when the rod has a certain speed. next we start with a new experiment.
In this experiment we introduce a new one dimensional grid which clocks a distance l apart. Two of these clocks coincide which the position of the clocks of the 'moving' clock. This new grid is called at rest while physical it is moving.
What we now have is in fact two physical reference frames or physical grids
- Grid 1, which is physical at rest and which we consider moving.
- Grid 2, a new one, which is physical moving and which we consider at rest.
Now we perform the same experiment in both directions and what we will see is that the results, compared with grid 2, are asymmetric. .
- First we start the engine again (no change in direction), the rod starts to move and its speed physical increases (in the forward direction). What both observers will see that the moving clock runs slower, compared to grid 2 and ofcourse to grid 1.
The difference is that in grid 2 we started from a situation we called at rest.
- Next we do the same from the same initial state as before, but before we start the engine we reverse the direction. Next we start the engine and the speed physical decreases (in the forward direction).
Now there are two different situations:
From the point of view of grid 1 the speed decreases and the moving clock starts to run faster.
From the point of view of grid 2 the speed increases (was at rest) and the moving clock starts to run faster.
What that means if you start from a physical situation at rest the behaviour of a clock is symmetric and if you start from a moving situation the behaviour is asymmetric.
If you don't know if your initial behaviour if either at rest or moving then IMO the golden rule is;
always perform your experiment with the clock tested in both directions and if the moving clock in one direction starts to run faster you know your the clock tested is not at rest.
What these experiments show, based on a certain reasoning, that it should be possible between two 'moving' clocks to select which one is the worst clock i.e moving with the slowest speed.
This could be in disagreement with the first postulate of SR, assuming that the first postulate implies, that the internal behaviour of an object is independent of the speed of an object relative to the internal behaviour of an other object.
This is when (all types) of moving clocks are considered, not the case.
It is possible that my reasoning is wrong, but to claim that it is not in accordance with the first and or second postulate is too simple. It would be very helpfull to identify which particular line of reasoning is wrong.
5. Conclusion
In the usenet discussion
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/How to test length contraction by experiment.htm#Mesg40
the following is written:
-
This is merely another example of insufficiently precise wording: the notion that C2 "runs slow" compared to C1 implicitly assumes a) using the inertial frame of A (and C1), and b) the difference in final displayed times depends ONLY on the clocks' tick rates. But a) if you are talking about the tick rate of C2 you MUST use its own rest frame, and b) the final difference also CLEARLY depends on the clocks' paths.
Bottom line: C2 does not "run slow". But C2 does run slow RELATIVE TO THE FRAME OF C1. Note carefully the difference in English wording, which reflects an essential difference in meaning.
In the previous paragraph the word reference frame nor inertial frame is mentioned. What is used is the concept a physical grid which can be a rod. The point is that all the clocks connected to the grid, all have the same speed or acceleration.
The conclusion that a moving clocks "runs slower" is based on two observations. (1) that the position of two clocks coincides and (2) that the number of counts is different. For example that the clock at rest shows 100 counts and the moving clock 90 counts.
The problem of tick rate of a clock is tricky, specific the tick rate in the clock its own frame.
In principle you should use the number of counts for a standard distance or multiples of a standard distance.
The most important lesson is that the behaviour of a clock using light signals belongs to optical physics. This has nothing to do with celestial mechanics i.e the movement of stars.
A different lesson is only to use one grid (or reference frame) and assume that this frame is physical at rest.
6. Some personal thoughts
The first postulate of SR makes a claim about the physical behaviour of processes. The second postulate of SR does the same, specific about the behaviour of light (photons). This raises the question what is the specific reason of these two postulates. Why?Einstein must have 'seen' a physical problem and to 'solve' this problem he invented these two postulates. This raises immediate the following question: Within the physical world, specific within the way we perform physics (the scientific method) , is it allowed to write down certain types of physical constrains, which in fact are relevant to the intrinsical behaviour of physical processes (experiments) involved.
A specific case is the physical behaviour of a clock, as designed and fabricated by humans. The idea behind a clock is to have a device which under all circumstances behaves the same i.e. counts at a constant rate. It is commonly known that for example mechanical (pendulum) clocks on board on a moving ship don't count at a constant rate. A related question is: Is it uberhaupt possible to develop a device which counts at a constant rate under all circumstances?
Part of the problem is that that the mathematical behaviour of certain clocks using light signals is the same as the mathematics (LOrentz Transformations) used in SR. However that is not true for all types of clocks.
The first postulate assumes two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
See Article Review "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"
Considering a set of (synchronised) clocks (in a 3 grid), starting from a state at rest, under going uniform translatory motion which variable speed (i.e. accelerated), and returning to the same state at rest. The point is that all these clocks stay synchronised during the whole experiment. What is important that all these clocks, each, run behind which the same amount, compared to a similar set of clocks, which all the time remained in the state at rest.
The importance is here that all the clocks, attached to a grid, as a solid object, move through space in a straight line.
The reason is that in such a the situation all the forces involved on each clock are the same. When the path is bended this is not the case and the moving clocks are not any more synchronised. The result is that they stil run behind, but the amount is different.
It is possible that my reasoning about the behaviour of clocks, is wrong, but to claim that it is not in accordance with the first and or second postulate is too simple. It would be very helpfull to identify which particular line of reasoning is wrong.
The whole discussion is a strugle specific the question: who has or where can I find the answer is difficult. Specific the fact that the replies in the usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research are not always in agreement with each other, support me with the idea that not everything is cristal clear, specific in the relation to physics versus mathematics.
7. Is the human mind an algorithm?
The answer is clearly: No. An algorithm is a set of predefined task, each executed without asking any question about what the purpose is. It can be a person or a computer who executes these tasks. At the same time it is a person, his mind, who defined the sequence of task which should take all responsibilities about the final purpose of these tasks.
- My 10 year old grand daughter at her school belongs to a group of 4 pupils. There are 6 of these groups.
- Together with her group, she is asked to answer the following question: Consider a farmer who has 13 animals. Some animals have 4 legs and some 2. The total number of legs is 38. How many animals are there with 4 legs and how many with 2.
- They are also supposed to answer a second question: Investigate which method, the other groups have used, to solve the same problem.
- And a third question: Decide which of the methods used, is the best.
Ofcourse this is not simple. For the reader a similar question: Try to write an algorithm i.e. a set of predefined task to solve this three question in a more organised or automated way. Again also this is difficult.
An interesting game to study is Paint Monster. The name is maybe misleading, but the rules of the game are very good to study Artificial Inteligence.
A more or less similar question is: Is it possible to translate any sentence in any other language.
In order to translate a sentence you must understand the meaning of all the words used in the sentence and what is more important the meaning of the total sentence; the meaning must be clear.
For example consider this sentence: (The first postulate of SR):
-
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
IMO this sentence is not clear specific the meaning of the whole sentence. However not every one agrees with this opinion.
An 'AI translation program' should incorporate a set of rules to translate this sentence
These rules should also be able to identify when a sentence is clear versus not clear.
That is the problem. What are these boundary conditions?
8. Paint Monsters versus Artificial Intelligence
To get a rough idea what the game Paint Monster is select this link: Paint Monsters .
The reason what Paint Monster has to do with Artificial Intelligence is because this program is a very good benchmark to challenge the concept that it is not possible to write a program to beat a human being assuming that the initial knowledge of the human being and the program is the same.
This means the human being that is playing against the computer should only use the available documentation and the information shown (training) while playing the game. The player is not allowed to get any advice from any other player nor is allowed to repeat levels for a second time to get a better result.
What this means is that the player improves his strategy only during and after playing each level and only using his own competence. The major way to learn is because most often he or she will fail, because the final objective of the game will not be reached and the specific level (game) has to be repeated. This requires a moment of thinking, why did it go wrong and what is a better strategy.
For the AI program this is exactly the same. The AI program initially only incorporates what the player knows. While playing, the AI program can collect more information and store that in a data base and use that to improve his strategy how to play the next game. What makes this so difficult that the subroutine 'how to improve your strategy' should be part of the original program and can not be modified while playing.
What this means that the AI program should mimic the way in which each individual, each human learns
Of course you can start all your games which incorporates only random moves, but then the intelligence level of the AI program stays the same and when you repeat the program on average the result will be the same.
That is not what you want because a human player will definite increase his intelligence level. It is that specific problem that the AI programmer should try to solve and that is not easy.
It should be mentioned that a face recognition program is only as clever as the internal rules used to improve this recognition.
Created: 7 Sept 2019
Modified: 14 Sept 2019
Back to my home page Index