The failure of Jason Lisle's ASC paradigm

[gene]

@ David MacMillan, your last two posts are excellent. Here are my most recent thoughts, with a clarification of an earlier post.

My previous post is probably two complicated, and it’s entirely possible that Dr. Lisle isn’t doing what I claimed he is doing. As I said in an earlier post he is misapplying the conventionality thesis when he changes reference frames by moving the origin to a distant event, and changing synchrony conventions by changing ε’ to zero. Here is another version of that post with more English and less math that is hopefully clearer.

He specifies that the earth is located at the origin of his reference frame and that ε’ is one. This can not change as he analyzes the the supernova problem. If it does, he is guilty of the same error that novice students of Special Relativity make while using the Lorentz transformations to analyze simultaneity for a moving train passing through a train station. They often use the station reference frame and coordinates to explain what a passenger on the train sees. But they must use train reference frame and coordinates to analyze simultaneity on the train.

This is the only correct description of the reference frame and synchrony convention that Dr. Lisle claims to be using throughout his paper.

(ASC time at a distant location) = (ESC time at the same distant location) + (distance to location) / (two way speed of light) or

1. t’_r = t_r + |r| / c

At the origin, the ASC and ESC clocks are co-located, so their separation is zero.
So (distance to location) / (two way speed of light) = 0, or mathematically, |r| / c = 0 and (ASC time) = (ESC time) or

2. t’₀ = t₀

As he describes in his paper, ESC is isotropic. That means that all the clocks in ESC always have the same reading, period!

3. t_r = t₀

At the moment of creation the ESC clock at the origin, the ASC clock at the origin, and every ESC clock located throughout the universe reads zero. Every other ASC clock reads (ESC time at a distant location) + (distance to location) / (two way speed of light). This is reflected in equation 1. If he wants to spread creation out over some arbitrary period of time, then at the end of creation equations 1, 2, and 3 must be the same as shown here. If they aren’t, then he is violating the conventionality thesis.

So any time he sets a distant clock to zero, he must subtract the same offset from all the clocks in the universe, ASC and ESC alike. Otherwise, he violates equations 1, 2, and 3. When he does this correctly, he will see that the ASC and ESC clocks at the origin, earth, have the same negative reading. This always means he has moved the universe back in time to before creation occurred. But he’s trying to claim that he can move the origin to the distant event and change ε’ to zero without violating the conventionality thesis, which is completely incorrect.

So whenever you see a post claiming that he can change a distant ASC clock to zero without adjusting the ASC clock at the origin to the same negative reading as the ESC clock at the origin, he has violated equation 2 and is not correctly applying the conventionality thesis.

Hopefully, Dr. Lisle will address this error in his application of the conventionality thesis. BTW, I wonder if ABC is another pen name.

Gene

[gene]

@MichaelL

have to admit, I’m not following this at all. You kept the “clock running” for t2 and t’2? How do you keep clocks “running” for a fixed timestamp?

Just turn the display updater off for the duration of second round trip. Restart it and leave it on when the first defined t₂ and t’₂ message returns from the moon. So the students see the t and t’ messages I described.

Gene

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@ABC

(Sorry, I’m not sure how to employ the math extension.)

For those of you contributing to this thread who may be interested, you can use \LaTeX to format equations by enclosing them in single dollar signs e.g. $e=mc^2$ (if you want to put them inline within a paragraph), or double dollar signs on new lines if you want them centred on a separate line. For example:

$$
i \hbar \frac{d}{d t}\vert\Psi(t)\rangle = \hat H\vert\Psi(t)\rangle
$$

gives:

i \hbar \frac{d}{d t}\vert\Psi(t)\rangle = \hat H\vert\Psi(t)\rangle

[gene]

@MichaelL

Or to put it super-simply, this is how I understand the conventionality of simultaneity:
Stick a giant clock on the moon that can be read from Earth.
Earthling Readings for Standard Synchrony:
CE = CM + 1.25s

Earthling Readings for Lisle’s ASC:
CE = CM

If I’m way off base, I really do want correct my understanding.

[Edit]
Replaced original post as nearly as I can remember it. I believe it reflects the comments in the next post.
[/Edit]

This is correct, but it doesn’t quite describe which readings are simultaneous.

Remember that ASC C_M = ESC C_M + 1.25s. Make C_M have two displays that are correctly synchronized with C_E. Since space-time is physically isotropic, the clocks are correctly synchronized when C_E reads the same as the ESC display on C_M and the ASC display reads C_E + 1.25s.

Visualize this by freezing time and moving back and forth between the earth and the moon. As we move back to the earth, we see the clocks change to the values you listed. Now stop visualizing and watch the clocks tick with the readings given earlier. So the readings you see don’t quite reflect which readings are simultaneous.

And this is one of Dr. Lisle’s misconceptions. He is claiming that the simultaneous readings are actually when the reading on C_E is the same as the ASC reading on C_M. If he really believes this, then he is assuming a physical field that makes the travel time from the moon to the earth physically zero.

Gene

[MichaelL]

@gene

This is correct, but it doesn’t quite describe which readings are simultaneous.

Doesn’t it? It is the Conventionality of Simultaneity. If we could prove that ESC is how the Universe really works (by direct measure of one-way light speed), there would be no Conventionality Thesis.

@gene

Visualize this by freezing time and moving back and forth between the earth and the moon. The readings you see are the ones listed above.

I think we all agree that that is probably the case, but to prove it we would have to be able to move back and forth instantly. For that matter, we would have to prove that it was actually instantaneous, since whatever method of transport we used could have had relativistic effects.

@gene

And this is one of Dr. Lisle’s misconceptions. He is claiming that the simultaneous readings are actually when the reading on C_E is the same as the ASC reading on C_M.

And in that, at least, he’s right. By choosing a synchrony convention, we are defining which readings are simultaneous for observers in the same reference frame (and at the same location or relative motion, depending on the convention).

While I don’t think his attempts work to allow a “YEC” model, I haven’t been able to find any way in which he violates the Conventionality Thesis (the only way I see that it would violate it is if he really believed that ASC is how the Universe really works).

[MichaelL]

I think I see where we’re actually talking about two different things. You’re trying to describe which clock ticks are simultaneous as an absolute fact of the universe, which is exactly what we can’t do. We can only define a synchrony convention. Remember, you can define any 2D surface that does not intersect with an observer’s light cones at point P as “simultaneous with P”. Not due to relativity, but to conventionality.

Now, let’s go back to my example. I’m making no attempt to say which events are “actually” simultaneous. Remember, I stated that my C_M is visible from Earth (as in, with the naked eye). My values are for both clocks as observed from Earth. That’s how I understand the Conventionality Thesis to work. An observer in one reference frame looks at distant clocks and defines which clock ticks are “simultaneous” because don’t know which ones actually are (we can only set bounds on which ticks could be).

[edit]
@gene I see you’ve deleted your post for further clarification. I’ll leave this reply as I think it still stands as a valid clarification of what I think we’re both trying to say, but I’m removing my quote of what you said.
[/edit]

[David_MacMillan]

@MichaelL

I think I see where we’re actually talking about two different things. You’re trying to describe which clock ticks are simultaneous as an absolute fact of the universe, which is exactly what we can’t do. We can only define a synchrony convention.

Yeah, this is trippy. The relativity and conventionality of simultaneity is challenging to think about but it is, ultimately, valid. From a mathematical standpoint. Lisle is free to use whatever simultaneity convention he wants.

However, from a cosmogenesis standpoint, we can all agree on the “convention” that choosing a convention which results in a negative date is, at best, nonsense. Big Bang cosmology avoids negative dates; Lisle’s cosmology embraces them.

[Argon]

This is related to the Lisle’s paradigm and not the immediate conversation but…

I have a question about interferometry: I can understand how interference instruments using a single light source and split beams may give consistent results, but what about interference from two sources? Assume you’ve got a 450 nm laser on Earth and another on Phobos (Mars moon). The beams are pointed at each other. The beam pointed to Phobos propagates at 1/2c. The outgoing light has a discrete wavelength and so hits the detector at a discrete phase.

Now consider the light coming in from the Phobos laser. It is also 450 nm light but travels to the mirror at infinite speed. During that transit there can be no change in wavelength. Whatever phase the light exits the laser is the same that arrives at the detector.

Some questions:

1. Can the light from the two beams actually interfere with each other?

• Consider the perspective from the Earth laser: Its light is moving at c/2 with a wavelength of 450/2 nm = 225 nm. The light from Phobos has an infinite wavelength. How do the phases combine?
• Consider the perspective from the detector: Light from both lasers are coming it at infinite speeds and infinite wavelengths. How do the phases combine?

2. Do the interference patterns change if the distance between the lasers change?

• Light arriving from the Phobos lasers can exhibit no distance-dependent phase movement during transit. Whatever phase is established during the lasing generation is frozen during transit. With instantaneous travel time there will be no change in phase over the distance. Does that mean there will be no distance dependent interference seen in this two laser setup?

Basically, I’m not sure how Lisle’s ASC paradigm doesn’t result in either observer-specific interference patterns and/or distance-independence for interference.

[David_MacMillan]

@Argon

I have a question about interferometry: I can understand how interference instruments using a single light source and split beams may give consistent results, but what about interference from two sources?

I am not sure that you can design a detector such that it will combine two different photon beams without reflecting them onto a combined trajectory at some point.

(EDIT) Not 100% on this, but I’m pretty certain that two photons cannot interfere with each other at all unless they share the same vector and location. Photons do not perceive distance and cannot interact unless they are physically in the same space.

You can easily enough design a beam splitter that will reflect the Phobos beam onto the same path as the Earth beam, or vice versa, or reflect both in a new direction, but then the beams will be moving in the same direction and thus the experiment is nominal.

[Argon]

@David_MacMillan

(EDIT) Not 100% on this, but I’m pretty certain that two photons cannot interfere with each other at all unless they share the same vector and location. Photons do not perceive distance and cannot interact unless they are physically in the same space.

Just have the beams focused on a single point. I don’t believe they need the same vector.

You can easily enough design a beam splitter that will reflect the Phobos beam onto the same path as the Earth beam, or vice versa, or reflect both in a new direction, but then the beams will be moving in the same direction and thus the experiment is nominal.

You could split the beams tangentially if desired. They would travel at ‘c’ with 450 nm wavelengths but you’d still have the observer-dependent phenomena.

• Consider the view from the Earth laser. You’re emitting a beam with a wavelength of 225 nm (c/2), covering a distance ‘x’ to splitter, followed by a path of distance ‘y’, speed ‘c’ and wavelength 450 nm at the detector. We can thus calculate the precise phase of the beam at the detector. Observing the light approaching from Phobos, we find the speed is instantaneous and the wavelength = infinity. The phase of the light leaving the Phobos laser is thus the same phase of the light arriving at the mirror, i.e. No change in transit plus no change relative to the distance covered to the splitter. The light hits the splitter and heads to the detector at ‘c’, with 450 nm wavelength and travels a distance ‘y’ to the detector. From the position of the Earth laser, we could calculate the phases of the both lasers hitting the splitter and their interaction at the detector. From that viewpoint we would calculate no dependence of the interference from on changes in the Earth-Phobos distance.

• That is different from what the someone standing at the detector would expect. They would calculate that the interference depends on the Earth-Phobos distance.

And one needn’t split the beams tangentially to the detector. You could mirror the Earth laser directly back (or closely back) to a detector adjacent to the laser and let the Phobos beam arrive untouched at the detector. The light bounced back from the mirror and the beam from Phobos would have infinite velocities, infinite wavelengths and no phase changes along that path. Again, you’d expect no effect on changing the distance between the detector and the Phobos laser. The only thing that would affect the interference measured is the distance from the Earth laser to the mirror.

Note: I’m not suggesting this experiment can be currently realized in practice, but as a gedanken, it may raise some issues.

[David_MacMillan]

@Argon

Just have the beams focused on a single point. I don’t believe they need the same vector.

Two photon beams will not form an interference pattern simply by being focused to the same point; they must actually be reflected along the same vector.

@Argon

You could mirror the Earth laser directly back (or closely back) to a detector adjacent to the laser and let the Phobos beam arrive untouched at the detector. The light bounced back from the mirror and the beam from Phobos would have infinite velocities, infinite wavelengths and no phase changes along that path.

The Phobos beam cannot be untouched, strictly speaking; it must pass through a filter associated with the mirror which reflects the Earth laser back. The resultant beam is a superposition of the two beams from the filter/mirror to the detector, and the superposition’s interference pattern can be evaluated without regard to c.

[Argon]

@David_MacMillan

Two photon beams will not form an interference pattern simply by being focused to the same point; they must actually be reflected along the same vector.

OK.

The Phobos beam cannot be untouched, strictly speaking; it must pass through a filter associated with the mirror which reflects the Earth laser back. The resultant beam is a superposition of the two beams from the filter/mirror to the detector, and the superposition’s interference pattern can be evaluated without regard to c .

Yes, I agree that the pattern could be evaluated without regard to c. I’m concerned the effects of changes in the Earth-Phobos distance. Let’s assume the light from Phobos is emitted from the end of the laser at a phase of 90^\circ. It travels a number of wavelengths to the mirror/splitter instantaneously. What is that light’s phase when it encounters the apparatus? How does the light’s phase change if the Earth-Phobos distance increases a fraction of a wavelength?

I’m having trouble understanding what happens to wavelength and phase as the speed of light varies, particularly to infinity.

[David_MacMillan]

Because photons are subject to relativity and Heisenberg uncertainty, I don’t believe we can draw any conclusions about the light’s phase when it enters the detector. That’s one of the things that ends up being weird no matter whether you are dealing with simultaneity conventions or something like special relativity.

I may be wrong here, but as far as I can tell, knowing the “true” phase of the light at the detector would be tantamount to measuring a preferred inertial reference frame.

[Argon]

Well this is a gedanken. Interferometry works. We know that light from two lasers can interact constructively or destructively. We know that the distance between light sources affects the interference patterns observed. So the open issue is what happens to light that can be said to travel at infinite velocity. I suspect that something goes funny with the math.

[MichaelL]

@David_MacMillan

Yeah, this is trippy. The relativity and conventionality of simultaneity is challenging to think about but it is, ultimately, valid. From a mathematical standpoint. Lisle is free to use whatever simultaneity convention he wants.

“Trippy” is a good way of putting it. When I started looking into this stuff, I had to go through a number of thought experiments with lousy conclusions before I could start building a functioning mental framework of how it should work. I think it’s because the apparent absoluteness of time is the foundation of all our intuitive experience. Our brain just rejects the idea that time is “relative” in not one, but two distinct senses until we are able to “retrain” it, so to speak.

However, from a cosmogenesis standpoint, we can all agree on the “convention” that choosing a convention which results in a negative date is, at best, nonsense. Big Bang cosmology avoids negative dates; Lisle’s cosmology embraces them.

I do have a question about your “negative dates” complaint against Lisle’s ASC. I’m probably not doing the math right, but I picture Lisle’s “creation” timeline as something like this:

Most distant planetary object orbiting most distant star is created (we’ll call it “Planet A”) → ~43b years → Earth is created → ~43b years → Planet A observes the Sun if they have sufficient telescopes (I’d hope so after 86b years!). Let Earth timestamp t = 6000 years, the “synchronized” Planet A timestamp t’ would then = ~43b years. They exist and we exist, but they just have no idea we exist. Am I looking at it wrong?

Also, I’ve had a realization based on Lisle’s ASC paper (emphasis mine):

@Jason Lisle

If the light en-route model were true, then all stars beyond about 6,000 light years are not yet fulfilling their God-ordained purpose to give light upon the earth, but Genesis 1:14–15 suggests that the stars fulfilled their purpose right from the day of their creation.

It occurs to me that in Lisle’s Universe, regardless of whether he thinks ASC or ESC is how the Universe actually works, it must be a flat 3D sphere with Earth at the geometric center. If there is even one star beyond the “observable” range 6000 years ago, it invalidates his entire model. For that matter, in what way were the millions (billions?) of stars that have been within the “observable Universe” for the last six thousand years, but were not actually observed until the last century “fulling their God-ordained purpose”?

[r_speir]

@MichaelL

If there is even one star beyond the “observable” range 6000 years ago, it invalidates his entire model.

Now I get to jump in. There are only a handful of ways to beat Lisle. Math is probably not one. First, he clearly violates the Conventionality Thesis with his young universe. We are just waiting for him to acknowledge this.

Second, a measure of the one-way speed of light, or a very close indirect measure would also silence him.

Third, is what you just now brought up >> if even one distant galaxy beyond our visible horizon blips into view, his paradigm declares that at the very instant it becomes visible, God thereat - at that very moment - created it. Since in the Bible view we are 6000 years removed from Creation Week, his paradigm would be immediately falsified.

[gene]

@MichaelL

Most distant planetary object orbiting most distant star is created (we’ll call it “Planet A”) → ~43b years → Earth is created → ~43b years → Planet A observes the Sun if they have sufficient telescopes (I’d hope so after 86b years!). Let Earth timestamp t = 6000 years, the “synchronized” Planet A timestamp t’ would then = ~43b years. They exist and we exist, but they just have no idea we exist. Am I looking at it wrong?

In Lisle’s ASC, light travels away from the earth towards distant objects at c / 2. So I don’t see how he can claim that light has traveled further than 3,000 light years from the earth. Any object further away than that has no clue the earth exists.

Gene

[MichaelL]

[quote=“gene, post:98, topic:4175, full:true”]

@MichaelL

Any object further away than that has no clue the earth exists

That’s what I said, except I was translating his “ASC model” into ESC.

[gene]

I was answering your question at the end of the quote, you’re doing it right.

Gene

[MichaelL]

Ah, thanks!