Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time”

[freeztar]

Sorry freeztar but here it becomes obvious that your knowledge of physics is severely limited.

 

Well, it's a good thing I'm not a physicist, huh? :rolleyes:

 

If you accept [imath]\vec{F}=m\vec{a}[/imath] (which is, after all, the actual definition of force, [imath]”vec{F}”[/imath]) and the fact that forces require a means of being introduced (some attachment which provides that force), then Foucault certainly demonstrated that the earth rotated without using any reference to any “source of light” from the night sky.

 

Thanks for the link! Though, the question was directed to Michael and was an attempt at proving an unrelated point.

It is not that I really disagree with your position but rather that things are a bit more subtle then you perceive them.

I am afraid both time and spatial dimensions are pure figments of your imagination, conceived of for the sole purpose of giving logical reason to the events you perceive

That is what I call reality. The sum of my perceptions. So, time and space are very real, to me at least.

(a deep and subtle issue which it seems only Anssi and I manage to comprehend).

Good for you! Us mere mortals aren't up for the challenge. :)

I am afraid that comment strike me in exactly the same way the old adage “ignorance is bliss” strikes me. To ignore such things is to prefer ignorance.

:confused:

I'm not ignoring anything, merely stating a preference.

 

You made some comments the other day about my position on “time”

Just making sure you're still following. ;)

I'm curious what you think of mooney's interpretation of your work...

 

and missed the boat by quite a wide margin; allow me to try to correct your impressions.

No! What I do is deduce the absolute truth of a specific equation capable of yielding an estimate of our expectations based on the information available to us and nothing else.

 

Absolute truth?

 

You cannot talk about anything without some information to go on and the definitions of that information (the things you are talking about) are part and parcel of your explanation and likewise part and parcel of the problem which confronts you. All I do is suggest we use numerical labels for the information available to us (as arbitrary reference labels only with utterly no numerical meaning) and then, purely from the symmetries in that problem, deduce the “fact” that a certain specific equation (which, as you say, bears a striking resemblance to Schrödinger's equation) must be valid. To date Anssi is the only person in the world who has taken the trouble to follow that proof.

 

Is Ansii the only one to follow that proof, or the only one to agree with you?

 

Everyone else simply assumes I can not possibly be correct in spite of the fact that most all the common relationships found in modern physics are easily shown to be, in fact, approximations to that equation (another issue only Anssi has taken the trouble to look at).

And for his troubles, he should receive a medal or something.

 

I will try once again to point out the error everyone seems absolutely incapable of seeing (except for Anssi of course).

of course...

 

The idea of time existed long before we had modern physics or even dreamed of relativity.

:eek_big:

Learn something new everyday I suppose...;)

 

The central issue of the concept of time was that two entities existing at the same time in the same place could interact with one another. Being in the same place at different times was seen as having utterly no physical consequences. When Newton came up with his analytical methods of analyzing the mechanical interactions of material objects he made the mistake of presuming that clocks at different places could be set to agree with one another (a problem which is actually very similar to your problem above, “how would you determine that the earth was still rotating?”)

 

Nonetheless, Newton's paradigm was so successful at explaining such a wide arena of behavior that it brought in the idea that, if you knew the position and velocity of every entity in the universe, the future would be exactly known: i.e., the difference between the past and the future, the point between the two areas, (what we call the present) was not an important concept from a physical perspective. His equations carried right past that point without any changes whatsoever. The present was a mere issue of simultaneity which (in his mind) was a well defined thing easily established by “ideal clocks”. It was because of this view that the modern idea, “time is what clocks measure” arose in the minds of men.

right...

But there is a problem there: the idea that “time is what clocks measure” is just not consistent with the idea that “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact”. The scientific community simply refuses to see these as two very different definitions of time. Just as Mr. Moody refuses to see Duration of the earth's orbit (getting back to where it started) and time to complete the orbit (as measured on a clock) as different things. The Duration of the earths orbit has to do with the “being at the same place at the same time” definition of time and the “time to complete the orbit” has to do with the “time is what is measured on a clock” definition of time. These are totally different definitions and treating them as equivalent yields nothing but confusion!

Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I'm failing to see the two definitions as mutually exclusive.

 

When Einstein proposed his solution to the simultaneity problem pointed out by Maxwell's equations, he was so enamored of the “time is what clocks measure” definition of time (and the idea that the future could be exactly known if the past were exactly known: i.e., the boundary between the two was of insignificant interest) that he used that definition in his work. Quantum mechanics, which explicitly recognizes the significance of that boundary essentially uses the “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact” definition. That is exactly the reason for the underlying incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hmmm...I thought the biggest incompatibility was gravity.

I use the “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact” definition making my work totally consistent with quantum mechanics.

 

Totally consistent? According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, it is not possible for fermions (entities) to exist in the same quantum state (same time same place).

 

I admit that my knowledge of QM is very weak, so perhaps I'm missing something. Would you please clarify?

 

It becomes perfectly consistent with Maxwell's equations by never introducing mass as a fundamental concept: i.e., it is a many body representation of massless entities moving at a fixed velocity (in the rest frame of the universe: a definable frame of reference) and thus is totally equivalent to Maxwell's equations. The existence of mass (which is, in my paradigm, merely quantized momentum in the tau direction) yields two very important consequences: first, “time” is not a measurable variable (it is utterly impossible to fashion any mechanical device which can be used to determine that two entities which exist in the same place will or will not interact) and has no meaning except with regard to interactions themselves (which must occur at the same time by definition) and second, in order to have macroscopic structures the elements making up those macroscopic structures must be momentum quantized in the same direction: i.e., they must be built of massive elements (entities momentum quantized in the tau direction) and likewise, because of the uncertainty principal, the tau position becomes totally unobservable.

 

The paradigm yields no conflict whatsoever between relativity and quantum mechanics and is totally consistent with all established known physics relationships.

See above.

 

Nevertheless, I have been well assured by many very qualified people that my paradigm could not possibly be a valid way of looking at the universe. My point being that trying to convince Moody of his error is a worthless effort.

I don't think the second sentence necessarily follows the first, but that's neither now nor then.

 

Have fun!

ztar

[watcher]

But the question I mentioned before which I haven't heard an answer to yet--just dismissive avoidance--is this: Why are you obsessed with this "absolute", "universal" viewpoint? .

 

imo, the pursuit of a unified theory is to find an absolute frame of reference. yes relativity gave us an insight of reality but remember all theories through out history were claimed to be consistent with observed reality, Newtonian paradigm included.

 

What purpose will it serve?

the shut up and calculate attitude does not apply here. this is a philosophy forum. the question here is ... do you have any idea what is it that you are so good at calculating.

 

As shown by Einstein, its one key weakness of the Newtonian theory, and required us to change our viewpoint to bring it's--yes purely mathematical--view with observed reality

what what do you think is the key weakness of relativity?

 

The point I made earlier about a viewpoint "external to the Universe"--which is essentially equivalent to the notion of "seeing all frames of reference simultaneously"--could provide something interesting--and I'll be the last to tell you that you "should not" pursue it--but if you're going to do it, it makes no sense to trash Relativity, because within our Universe it's completely consistent with reality.

 

im not trashing it, im just trying to point out its limitations. one of its limitations, that even einstein admitted was the use of continuous field in relativity was not consistent with the present atomic theories which are discrete.

 

the view of motion in relativity which is also continuous is not consistent with QM. relative motion of relativity which is vetoral (tranverse) in nature appeared to be consistent with reality but it may be not be the true motion but only apparent . the math may work but again it does not explain the origin of these transverse motions.

 

i have brought this up already that the possibility of true motion or the more fundamental motion in our universe is scalar in nature, and i'm keep bringing this up because i think that time and motion are intrinsically link if not one and the same. to understand motion is to understand time.

[watcher]

It (i.e. space) remains simple emptiness...

 

it's newtonian. hard to depend.

matter needs "something" between them to make interaction possible.

 

by this necessity , newton name it gravity

maxwell and einstein called them fields.

they don't really mean anything or things in themselves.

these are just names they called this "action at the distance" behavior. they study the relation, do some measurements and derived constant , formulated. and lo and behold, called the equation fields and now they are sacred objects of relativists LOL

 

but of course, there must be something in space for matter to interact.

david bohm introduced "pilot waves".

space as empty is consistent with our ideas of a vaccum, but this "empty" space has wave properties.

[freeztar]

imo, the pursuit of a unified theory is to find an absolute frame of reference.

 

How so?

A unified theory basically finds the commonality amongst competing theories while at the same time getting rid of all the contradictions. That's how I understand it, not as an attempt to find an "absolute frame of reference".

 

yes relativity gave us an insight of reality but remember all theories through out history were claimed to be consistent with observed reality, Newtonian paradigm included.

 

Nobody has claimed that SR or GR are *perfect*. I agree that we have a lot to learn. Stepping back to Newton is not the way forward though, imho.

 

the shut up and calculate attitude does not apply here. this is a philosophy forum. the question here is ... do you have any idea what is it that you are so good at calculating.

Why did you even hit submit with this paragraph included? Rubbish...

 

what what do you think is the key weakness of relativity?

Answering a question with an unrelated question?

 

i have brought this up already that the possibility of true motion or the more fundamental motion in our universe is scalar in nature, and i'm keep bringing this up because i think that time and motion are intrinsically link if not one and the same. to understand motion is to understand time.

 

Motion depends on time, not the other way around...or is it?

[watcher]

How so?

A unified theory basically finds the commonality amongst competing theories while at the same time getting rid of all the contradictions. That's how I understand it, not as an attempt to find an "absolute frame of reference".

 

buffy understood it. an absolute frame is the same as absolute truth which can be found by transcending the universe. it is the ground where all contradictions are resolved and all commonalities resides.

 

i agreed with her understanding. our disagreement is that i am not a postmodernist. ( all is relative, nothing is absolute kinda guy)

 

Motion depends on time, not the other way around...or is it?

new ideas comes not by looking for new things but looking at the same things in a different way, i would say there is nothing but motion.

[freeztar]

buffy understood it. an absolute frame is the same as absolute truth which can be found by transcending the universe. it is the ground where all contradictions are resolved and all commonalities resides.

 

Right. I'm used to calling it Heaven. Semantic disagreement I suppose...

 

new ideas comes not by looking for new things but looking at the same things in a different way, i would say there is nothing but motion.

 

Our history is so riddled with examples of Science being stifled, subjugated, and basically tossed aside for some other "explanation system". But it reigns now! Time is a constant in the calculation of movement. They are intrinsically linked in that specific manner.

 

No one wants to see the "end" of physics, be it by consensual acknowledgement or outright censorship. For a new physics to take hold, it must fight with the same voracity that it's preceding competitors' faced. To clarify Newton is a gigantic task. To clarify Einstein, it takes someone who knows both men and is willing to have strife.

 

:)

[Erasmus00]

If you accept [imath]\vec{F}=m\vec{a}[/imath] (which is, after all, the actual definition of force, [imath]”vec{F}”[/imath]) and the fact that forces require a means of being introduced (some attachment which provides that force), then Foucault certainly demonstrated that the earth rotated without using any reference to any “source of light” from the night sky.

 

Actually- without the fixed stars Foucalt's pendulum very well might not have worked. Consider the situation of a stationary Earth in General Relativity, embedded inside a uniform rotating sphere (a first order approximation to the stars). You can show the rotating sphere's frame dragging effect creates a gravitational field on Earth to deflect the pendulum.

 

In some sense, GR contains a weak version of Mach's principle- without the stars as reference, there may be no centrifugal force effects.

 

Quantum mechanics, which explicitly recognizes the significance of that boundary essentially uses the “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact” definition. That is exactly the reason for the underlying incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

This has nothing to do whatsoever with the difficulty between quantum mechanics and general relativity- if what you are saying were true then special relativity (which uses the same definition of time) would also be in conflict (it is not.)

[watcher]

Your other argument of trying to say that what is seen from two different viewpoints is equivalent to saying "the objects have two different speeds simultaneously proves Relativity is absurd" can only be a supportable argument if you misrepresent what Relativity is saying: different frames of reference perceive events differently, but they are all self-consistent. It is not saying that a physical object *is* moving different speeds simultaneously, it is saying that its motion "will be perceived as different speeds from different reference frames."

modest have answer this to my satisfaction.

when an observer is relative to itself, it is meaningless to talk about motion at all. i agree.

 

now the emotional aftermath of this is if this is so, if we take away relative motions, how do we make sense of the world at all. what would happen to physics?

 

i say there is no need to panic because what is being take out is only relative motion and not the true motion, ( in my book are scalar motions hehe). as michael asserts, without frame of references, there will still be moving objects. besides, particle theories have gotten rid of motion in their theories, do they not? its pure geometry.

[Michael Mooney]

freeztar;281977]For all practical purposes, the comet would not be moving at all. The only way to prove/disprove this is by introducing an observer, hence adding a "in relation to".

 

What "practical purposes" exactly? It was a thought experiment with the only body left in the universe being Haley's comet.

I said, in that context:

"It(the comet) moves all by itself. ... we can assume that it would not just "freeze", i.e., that it would continue to move in a line (without designated "ends") tangent to its orbit after sun's (and other sources) gravity ceases.

 

I see that you too are incapable of imagining the above without "an observer" and "points of reference" for its movement "relative to those points" (or at least relative to an observer.) So, you, like Modest, refuse to even engage in the thought experiment on the terms of its presentation... again because of the (ironically absolute) dogma that "Everything is relative."

 

Seriously, if you can imagine a traveling comet in unbounded black space, surely you must see it as still. If you can't, then you are introducing some other reference point (edge of space, star, observer, etc.).

 

In the "experiment" I took Modest's moving comet and just "disappeared" everything else. The law of dynamic inertia in this case dictates that its speed will stay the same (tho trajectory loses its orbit) until another force impinges on it, but there are no other forces... so it just keeps going through empty space.

You and Modest are both (understandably, as convinced that "all is relative")) obsessed with introducing "other reference points." It's my thought experiment, and there are none.

 

Again, if every source of light disappeared from the night sky, how would you tell that the Earth is still rotating?

 

Doctordick had an interesting, if arrogant and condescending (as usual) take on that.

But if you will contemplate my briefly stated philosophy above (with better comprehension that apparent for my thought experiment) you will see that one take on the cosmos is that it has an existence "all by itself" regardless of human observation and measurement. Accordingly, I know that Earth has always, since its formation, rotated, is presently rotating, and unless an Earth-shattering disaster happens, that it will continue to rotate. I can project this reality into the future as a near certain fact, for quite a long "time."

 

(But I didn't address your intent. Presuming the rest of the cosmos is still there but just obscured, I would reason that if it had stopped rotating, all hell would be breaking loose, so assuming all is relatively well (besides the usual hell on earth), I could be sure that it is still rotating.)

 

I don't believe time is an "entity". I believe time is a natural result of our universe, just like spatial dimensions.

 

"...a natural result," but not an entity? Not just event duration? What then?... the core ontological question posed by this thread!

 

Clocks tick at different rates. We know factors that cause this to happen: gravity, velocity, and acceleration. We don't know "why" these affect time, but they do, measurably. But, it's not "just" clocks ticking. It is movements of particles, ageing, and other realities of change.

 

I've always agreed with the above, including the proposition that anything and everything that moves (everything) can be assigned a duration or "elapsed time"... which *IS* a function of said "assignment" by observation and the act of measurement.

 

One earth rotation can be (and is) called "a day" calibrated as "one rev = one day." (I suggest clocks at sea level on the equator and a distant star as a reference point... for purpose of standardization.)

But this will not vary just because a bunch of "clockers" at different locations (as above) are getting different readings. This is *so obvious* to me!

 

Philosophically speaking, I find the concepts, of absolute here and now, boring compared to the realities of the universe, with everything being relative. I'm quite glad the universe works as it does, regardless of why it does.

 

Likewise philosophically speaking, I find the belief that relativity theorists consider the only "realities of the universe" to be about which observers can see what and when from whatever "frame or frames of reference"... to be not only boring but quite closed minded... about the "real cosmos" as it exists in part and *as a whole* beyond relative perspectives.

 

Good thing science forums have philosophy sections so folks like me, not limited to the relativity paradigm, can share their philosophies in dialogues of mutual respect. :shrug: (Please allow a bit of sarcasm in my particular case.)

Michael

PS: As for "dialogue" on the several points made in my last "philosophical" post, there has been none.

[modest]

But there is a problem there: the idea that “time is what clocks measure” is just not consistent with the idea that “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact”.

That's because your quote says "at the same time" rather than "at the same point in time"

 

Just as a point in space is not the same as space so too a point in time is not the same as time. A point is not dimensionful and cannot be measured in and of itself. By definition, a metric is a function giving distance between points. That distance is a dimensionful quantity, can have units, can be measured, and is indeed measured by clocks and measuring tapes.

 

A ruler measures space (i.e. distance or length). It does not measure a point in space (i.e. location). Likewise, a clock measures time (i.e. duration). A clock does not measure a point in time (i.e. instant).

 

The scientific community simply refuses to see these as two very different definitions of time.

 

Just as it would be addled to define a line as a point or to define spatial length as location (which has no length), so too would it make no sense to define time as an instant (which has no duration).

 

“time” is not a measurable variable

 

A *point* in time as with a point in space is not, by itself, a measurable variable. When one point is measured in relation to another it is called distance (either spatial or temporal) and that can be measured.

 

(it is utterly impossible to fashion any mechanical device which can be used to determine that two entities which exist in the same place will or will not interact)

 

Objects which have spatial separation or temporal separation cannot directly interact (assuming the validity of locality). To determine if two co-located objects interact a person simply measures the time between them—with a clock. If it is greater than zero then they don't interact.

 

For example, at the center of a traffic intersection cars approach from different directions. A clock measures 4 seconds time between 1) the first car being zero meters from the center of the intersection, and 2) the second car being zero meters from the center of the intersection. The cars do not wreck because t > 0. If the measured time were zero (or near zero as cars are rather large and slow) then the cars would wreck. Such a "mechanical device" could easily be made.

 

~modest

[modest]

so it just keeps going through empty space.

 

Can you please explain the difference between going through space and being at rest in space where a single element (like our comet) is the only thing that exists? What, for example, would this comet have to do in order to come to rest in a universe populated with only this comet? I can't think of anything, so I'm honestly asking what, if anything, you think the difference would be.

 

Also, since the comet is moving "through space" then perhaps you could revisit my original question: is velocity (or speed) a meaningful concept as a description of a single entity in and of itself, or do at least two things need to be compared for velocity to have meaning? I ask because your response compares a comet to space. If the motion of the comet exists relative to space then my question would be affirmed in that things need to be compared for the sake of velocity.

 

In the "experiment" I took Modest's moving comet and just "disappeared" everything else. The law of dynamic inertia in this case dictates that its speed will stay the same (tho trajectory loses its orbit) until another force impinges on it, but there are no other forces... so it just keeps going through empty space.

 

It would be very unreasonable to expect the law of inertia (Newton's first law) to apply to a comet surrounded by a diapering universe. Besides which, it doesn't tell you if something is moving or at rest anyway.

 

Also, Mach's principle Mach's principle makes inertia inapplicable to the empty universe.

 

I've always agreed with the above, including the proposition that anything and everything that moves (everything) can be assigned a duration or "elapsed time"... which *IS* a function of said "assignment" by observation and the act of measurement.

 

One earth rotation can be (and is) called "a day" calibrated as "one rev = one day." (I suggest clocks at sea level on the equator and a distant star as a reference point... for purpose of standardization.)

But this will not vary just because a bunch of "clockers" at different locations (as above) are getting different readings. This is *so obvious* to me!

 

Galaxies at redshift Z = 1 are time dilated such that something lasting one minute here in our galaxy (such as a supernovae) lasts 2 minutes in the distant galaxy. This is because the distant galaxy is speeding away from us very quickly. (this is true and verified by the way, not a hypothetical).

 

From their perspective we here in the Milky Way are speeding away from them. Supernovae near them last 1 minute and from their perspective supernovae here in the Milky Way last 2 minutes, because, from that galaxy's perspective this galaxy is time dilated.

 

You admit and even find intuitive the idea that clocks near earth change pace (GPS clocks for example). You accept that particles in extremely accurate particle accelerators have their lifetime lengthened and prediction of relativity are satisfied to extraordinary precision. But, you will not look at things from the clock's perspective. You will say that a clock slows when viewed from and lowered from the sky down toward the earth, but you will not say that the earth speeds up as it approaches and is viewed from the location of the clock.

 

You choose earth to be privileged because it is big (I can think of no other reason you choose the earth over the clock). But, the earth is itself a big clock. Supernovae are even bigger clocks and we have observed them time dilating. Galaxies are time dilated.

 

So, you might consider how little sense it makes to choose a single thing like the earth which is really quite small and insignificant and say that it doesn't speed up or slow down while other smaller clocks do. Earth rotates very fast when considered from deep within the gravity well of the supermassive black hole at our galaxy's center and Earth rotates very slow as viewed from a far off galaxy. There is nothing more or less privileged about earth's frame of reference than those frames nor is the GPS clock's frame less privileged than sea level.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

I don't have "time" today to reply in detail, but my recently repeated philosophy and my thought experiment were intended to ask this forum to consider an alternative philosophy to the standard dogma here that absolutely everything is relative.

 

I asked you to consider Haley's comet as being in motion in and of itself considered for a moment at least as the same body with the same movement but without regard to other points of reference. You refuse and in fact seem incapable of this exercise.

 

As repeated, its vector would change without the sun's gravity holding it in orbit, but it was moving when you introduced it, and it would continue to move... through empty space... if it were the only body in existence... with nothing to arrest its movement.

And without external gravitational influence it would travel in a straight line, and that line is not required to have "ends" as reference "points" for its intrinsic movement.

 

Footnote to Doctordunk regarding your statement:

That inadequacy seems to be as difficult for them to see as it is for Moody to comprehend the inadequacy of his concept of motion.

What inadequacy is that exactly? If you can't even get my very common name right, how is it that you think you understand my concept of motion?

One can, of course intellectually consider a body's motion in and of itself, i.e., as it might be objectively and independently of human measurement.

 

So as I have been saying, Earth's orbit and period of revolution do not speed up and slow down, with every Tom, Dick, and Harry's clocking of them from different perspectives with clocks ticking at different rates. To assert otherwise in the name of relativity is pure nonsense.

Gotta go.

Michael

[freeztar]

I asked you to consider Haley's comet as being in motion in and of itself considered for a moment at least as the same body with the same movement but without regard to other points of reference. You refuse and in fact seem incapable of this exercise.

 

As repeated, its vector would change without the sun's gravity holding it in orbit, but it was moving when you introduced it, and it would continue to move... through empty space... if it were the only body in existence... with nothing to arrest its movement.

And without external gravitational influence it would travel in a straight line, and that line is not required to have "ends" as reference "points" for its intrinsic movement.

Michael, it is you that seems unable to grasp this. But, let's try again...

 

Ok, we've got the comet orbiting the sun, and then everything disappears except for the comet (all light and gravitational influences become non-existent). With a lonesome comet, the idea of motion, or velocity, becomes non-existent as well. There is absolutely no way to measure the comet's speed or trajectory.

 

In the preceding link modest gave, we find the following quote, which supports our claim.

 

There is a fundamental issue in Relativity theory. If all motion is relative, how can we measure the inertia of a body? We must measure the inertia with respect to something else. But what if we imagine a particle completely on its own in the universe? We might hope to still have some notion of its state of rotation. Mach's principle is sometimes interpreted as the statement that such a particle's state of motion has no meaning in that case.

 

But, as you say, according to physics, the comet would be moving in a straight line at whatever speed it was going when everything disappeared. But the only way we could know this is to "switch everything back on" and see that the comet is moving at the predicted speed in a trajectory now tangent to our solar system. So, then, we could deduce that the comet must have been moving while everything is off. But while everything is off, there is no way to tell it's motion.

So as I have been saying, Earth's orbit and period of revolution do not speed up and slow down, with every Tom, Dick, and Harry's clocking of them from different perspectives with clocks ticking at different rates. To assert otherwise in the name of relativity is pure nonsense.

Gotta go.

Michael

 

Actually, to state the opposite is pure nonsense. I'm running out of ideas to help you see this. It's quite easily shown with equations, but since your math is not up to par, I'm not sure how else to get this through to you. B)

[AnssiH]

Hi Freeztar. I saw your post #900, and thought "well that's not helpful". It only reaffirmed my belief that this is not a good forum for DD's presentation. It really is not something you could dissect with bunch of one-liner replies. I wouldn't blame you for not making real comments about the actual work; no one is forcing you to actually put in the time it requires. But I do think the dismissive tone tells me you have already made up your mind without thinking about the issue seriously, much like Michael seems to have made up his mind about relativity.

 

I think I should make couple of quick comments myself (and I don't make any of them with the expectation that you'd suddenly decide to put time into walking through DD's presentation, rather everything I'm about to say should be understandable in bite-sized chunks as is probably appropriate for this thread)

 

I am afraid both time and spatial dimensions are pure figments of your imagination, conceived of for the sole purpose of giving logical reason to the events you perceive

That is what I call reality. The sum of my perceptions. So, time and space are very real, to me at least.

(a deep and subtle issue which it seems only Anssi and I manage to comprehend).

Good for you! Us mere mortals aren't up for the challenge.

 

Of course there's nothing there you couldn't understand; I'm sure DD put in that disclaimer about the subtletly of the issue because otherwise the claim gets easily tagged as "crazy idealistic ontology". That is very annoying problem actually...

 

The actual issue is that when you take any random noise, it can always be modeled in terms of persistent entities (think of the assumptions required to be able to think about "objects" in "motion").

 

Given few symmetry requirements, the model yields definitions where those persistent entities - the objects in motion - obey conservation of momentum. Having that, of course also means you have the definition of "inertial frames" right there (what is considered as "straight"), and other aspects of space and time.

 

I.e. at that point you have the epistemological explanation for "space" and "time". (Do not worry, the actual work is of course far more analytical than the above)

 

I'm quite glad the universe works as it does, regardless of why it does.

I am afraid that comment strike me in exactly the same way the old adage “ignorance is bliss” strikes me. To ignore such things is to prefer ignorance.

 

B)

I'm not ignoring anything, merely stating a preference.

 

He means, there actually exists an explanation as to why do we see the universe the way we do, so there is no reason to say "the universe just is that way and no one knows why". I.e there is a good reason why the relativistic model is valid, as a model.

 

Most people think there cannot be any answer beyond the "it just is"; "what we see is what there is, and the rest is excess beliefs". In actuality, the answer does exist because it has got nothing to do with those excess beliefs (ontology); it is found from the epistemological constraints. That is, it arises as a valid model (approximation) for ordering any data in analytical manner.

 

In fact that presentation exposes a lot of "excess beliefs" often lumped together with modern physics. (In terms of what is a matter of interpretation and what is a consequence of particular definitions and so on)

 

If that strikes you as "obviously invalid", I can't help with that as the next step would pretty much be to look at the algebra very carefully...

 

Absolute truth?

 

Is Ansii the only one to follow that proof, or the only one to agree with you?

 

There's not much to "agree with" in terms of beliefs or personal philosophies, it's all about logical consequences of specific definitions. That's what the "absolute truth" means; you can still create all kinds of interpretations as you wish, the work is only mapping the logical consequences of particular definitions.

 

their major problem is with their inadequate definition of time (that is the major reason I bother to read this thread). That inadequacy seems to be as difficult for them to see as it is for Moody to comprehend the inadequacy of his concept of motion.

 

That I think is quite spot on, and I think the difficulty arises from the idea that relativistic treatment of time is the only valid way to map reality. "What we see on clock display is all we can work with and rest is excess beliefs."

 

Perhaps you can appreciate the fact that the value and behaviour of "C" in Maxwell's equations does play a role in your expectations as to how a clock internally works (and what it yields as a measurement), and yet to measure the value and behaviour of "C" you need that macroscopic clock to measure it. A bit unfortunate circumstance isn't it?

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I'm failing to see the two definitions as mutually exclusive.

 

He was just saying, in a bit roundabout way, that two clocks, after making trips and returning back together, will not display the same measurement. So the statement "2 objects in same place at the same time can interact" refers to one definition of time, and "a clock measures time" refers to another definition of time; they do not co-incide. Simple as that.

 

Now there were few one-liners in various posts dismissing that point after about 10 seconds of thought, with some strange counter-examples that had nothing to do with the statement. I'm afraid it is actually something that does lead to subtle problems in modern physics, and it would be nice if people understood the issue explicitly.

 

To give you a better idea of what that's about, I'm skipping few parts and just jump all the way to say that it turns out that the "C" in Maxwell's equations arises from the symmetry requirements to your world model. It is not a feature of reality, but it arises as a feature of a solution to the prediction function that obeys the symmetry requirements; i.e. it is a necessary feature of your particular "model of reality".

 

The value of "C" - after all it is "speed" through "space" - is associated to an evolution parameter of your solution. Without such timewise parameter, there is no such definition as "speed". That evolution parameter is what essentially gives you that definition of time where you can say "when 2 objects are to be found from the same "place" at the same "time" they interact" (an important epistemological tool, wouldn't you agree?). It is what tells you your expectations of how electromagnetic information propagates.

 

The value of C can be treated in many different ways when you go to perform a coordinate transformation between moving frames; the relativistic treatment takes it as isotropic, and because of how it is actually tied to the other definitions (because of how it arose from the symmetry requirements), it leads to relativistic definition of simultaneity, and all those other features of relativity that you keep talking about in this thread (length contraction etc).

 

No matter which way you treat it, it is tied to other definitions associated with "macroscopic objects" (mass etc) in such ways that your expectations for macroscopic clocks absolutely must yield relativistic "time" measurements. Just like in relativity it would be invalid to view space or time as independent by themself, here you have to understand that C is nothing by itself; it is tied to other definitions. (if that made sense to you, take a look at the end of the opening post of "Derivation of Schrödinger's equation", to see a bit of those associated relationships).

 

At that point, when you say "time measurement" it is very different idea than the evolution parameter that was originally associated with C, and you should keep them explicitly separated. But often we don't, and now we can all say "oops", can't we?

 

Note especially that none of that is saying that relativity is invalid model. The important bit is to understand exactly how does relativistic idea of reality arise as a necessary feature of your world model, while it never was a feature of the content of the data that your world model explains.

 

Makes sense?

 

Totally consistent? According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, it is not possible for fermions (entities) to exist in the same quantum state (same time same place).

 

I admit that my knowledge of QM is very weak, so perhaps I'm missing something. Would you please clarify?

 

To talk about that goes little bit too deep into the presentation to comment on here, but suffice to say, it is in there, don't worry.

 

ps, none of the above was explicitly stated like that by DD. I did not just read his post and "agree with it". I had quite vague idea of what he was saying until I walked through the algebra (I think he kept it from me a bit so I wouldn't jump into conclusions )

 

Everything I'm talking about falls out from actually walking through the algebra and actually thinking about it myself. Yes it is trouble (especially for me), and no it does not fall out as immediately obvious before you walk through it, but I did see it in there myself, and yes it does appear no one has taken it seriously enough to look at it because all that information is not buried that deep.

 

And btw once you understand what is going on there, you can see bits and pieces of the same facts in modern physics here and there, just not quite as explicitly.

 

-Anssi

[watcher]

okay, so time would be differently defined in relativity, since it would be defined according to its own postulates. (the same way you cannot argue what is god to a fundamentalist because their god is already defined by their dogma) and quantum mechanics would also defined time in a different manner. for example, in relativity, time is an operator/property while in QM, it is a parameter.

 

so it goes that time would be differently defined by a banker and who knows what time is for a beach bum, LOL

 

there must be a moral lesson to this? for example, some here actually believed that relativity theory represents us a "true knowledge" of reality when all we can get from it are actually insights to what is reality. a partial insights of reality, (seeing reality in parts) and to be absolute should not be taken as a bad word in physics since it simply meant to strive to get an insight to the reality as a whole.

 

so it appears that we have to shake some sacred held beliefs before we can advance in this topic.

[freeztar]

Hi Freeztar. I saw your post #900, and thought "well that's not helpful". It only reaffirmed my belief that this is not a good forum for DD's presentation. It really is not something you could dissect with bunch of one-liner replies. I wouldn't blame you for not making real comments about the actual work; no one is forcing you to actually put in the time it requires. But I do think the dismissive tone tells me you have already made up your mind without thinking about the issue seriously, much like Michael seems to have made up his mind about relativity.

Several months ago, I made an attempt to see what DD was on about. I sent him a PM with a question about one of his algebraic expressions. Apparently he didn't like my level of math, so instead of trying to walk me through it, he told me that it would be "a waste of my time" to attempt to understand. B)

 

I'd say that is quite dismissive for someone actually trying to understand. So, he can't claim that no one will take it seriously when he rejects an attempt at understanding it. I'm happy to take his word for it and not pursue his ideas, but it's a bit hypocritical to denounce my understanding of it. Wouldn't you agree?

I think I should make couple of quick comments myself (and I don't make any of them with the expectation that you'd suddenly decide to put time into walking through DD's presentation, rather everything I'm about to say should be understandable in bite-sized chunks as is probably appropriate for this thread)

Thanks.

I tend to understand you a lot better than DD, so perhaps I can get a glimpse after all.

Of course there's nothing there you couldn't understand; I'm sure DD put in that disclaimer about the subtletly of the issue because otherwise the claim gets easily tagged as "crazy idealistic ontology". That is very annoying problem actually...

My first impression were certainly of the "idealistic ontology" type, but I wouldn't say crazy.

The actual issue is that when you take any random noise, it can always be modeled in terms of persistent entities (think of the assumptions required to be able to think about "objects" in "motion").

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

 

Given few symmetry requirements, the model yields definitions where those persistent entities - the objects in motion - obey conservation of momentum. Having that, of course also means you have the definition of "inertial frames" right there (what is considered as "straight"), and other aspects of space and time.

 

I.e. at that point you have the epistemological explanation for "space" and "time". (Do not worry, the actual work is of course far more analytical than the above)

ok.

 

He means, there actually exists an explanation as to why do we see the universe the way we do, so there is no reason to say "the universe just is that way and no one knows why". I.e there is a good reason why the relativistic model is valid, as a model.

So, there's a valid epistemoligal explanation for why we perceive things the way we do and why our models work, but what about ontology? In the context of this thread, what are the assumptions about time, ontologically?

 

Most people think there cannot be any answer beyond the "it just is"; "what we see is what there is, and the rest is excess beliefs". In actuality, the answer does exist because it has got nothing to do with those excess beliefs (ontology); it is found from the epistemological constraints. That is, it arises as a valid model (approximation) for ordering any data in analytical manner.

How is the ontology not relevant in terms of assuming it "just is"? Are you suggesting that the ontology is irrelevant given the proper epistemological constraints?

 

In fact that presentation exposes a lot of "excess beliefs" often lumped together with modern physics. (In terms of what is a matter of interpretation and what is a consequence of particular definitions and so on)

Can you give some examples?

 

If that strikes you as "obviously invalid", I can't help with that as the next step would pretty much be to look at the algebra very carefully...

It doesn't strike me as obviously invalid because I'm not sure exactly what "it" is.

I'll admit that the math is very daunting. I'd need quite a bit of help walking through the equations.

 

There's not much to "agree with" in terms of beliefs or personal philosophies, it's all about logical consequences of specific definitions. That's what the "absolute truth" means; you can still create all kinds of interpretations as you wish, the work is only mapping the logical consequences of particular definitions.

Ok, that helps.

 

That I think is quite spot on, and I think the difficulty arises from the idea that relativistic treatment of time is the only valid way to map reality. "What we see on clock display is all we can work with and rest is excess beliefs."

 

Perhaps you can appreciate the fact that the value and behaviour of "C" in Maxwell's equations does play a role in your expectations as to how a clock internally works (and what it yields as a measurement), and yet to measure the value and behaviour of "C" you need that macroscopic clock to measure it. A bit unfortunate circumstance isn't it?

In so far as it seems circuitous, yes, it is a bit unfortunate.

Though, in this case, it seems it's similar to the chicken and the egg argument. But unlike the chicken and the egg argument, the chicken and the egg are concurrent.

 

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but hopefully you will see what I'm getting at and can clear up any misconceptions I might have, as it relates to DD's work.

 

He was just saying, in a bit roundabout way, that two clocks, after making trips and returning back together, will not display the same measurement. So the statement "2 objects in same place at the same time can interact" refers to one definition of time, and "a clock measures time" refers to another definition of time; they do not co-incide. Simple as that.

Ok, I think I see it now. In the latter definition time is absolute, or at least doesn't include relativity like the former does. Yes/no?

 

Now there were few one-liners in various posts dismissing that point after about 10 seconds of thought, with some strange counter-examples that had nothing to do with the statement. I'm afraid it is actually something that does lead to subtle problems in modern physics, and it would be nice if people understood the issue explicitly.

I agree. Perhaps to that end you could address the strange counter-examples and how they do not relate?

 

To give you a better idea of what that's about, I'm skipping few parts and just jump all the way to say that it turns out that the "C" in Maxwell's equations arises from the symmetry requirements to your world model. It is not a feature of reality, but it arises as a feature of a solution to the prediction function that obeys the symmetry requirements; i.e. it is a necessary feature of your particular "model of reality".

 

The value of "C" - after all it is "speed" through "space" - is associated to an evolution parameter of your solution. Without such timewise parameter, there is no such definition as "speed". That evolution parameter is what essentially gives you that definition of time where you can say "when 2 objects are to be found from the same "place" at the same "time" they interact" (an important epistemological tool, wouldn't you agree?). It is what tells you your expectations of how electromagnetic information propagates.

 

The value of C can be treated in many different ways when you go to perform a coordinate transformation between moving frames; the relativistic treatment takes it as isotropic, and because of how it is actually tied to the other definitions (because of how it arose from the symmetry requirements), it leads to relativistic definition of simultaneity, and all those other features of relativity that you keep talking about in this thread (length contraction etc).

Ok, I think I follow.

 

No matter which way you treat it, it is tied to other definitions associated with "macroscopic objects" (mass etc) in such ways that your expectations for macroscopic clocks absolutely must yield relativistic "time" measurements. Just like in relativity it would be invalid to view space or time as independent by themself, here you have to understand that C is nothing by itself; it is tied to other definitions. (if that made sense to you, take a look at the end of the opening post of "Derivation of Schrödinger's equation", to see a bit of those associated relationships).

 

At that point, when you say "time measurement" it is very different idea than the evolution parameter that was originally associated with C, and you should keep them explicitly separated. But often we don't, and now we can all say "oops", can't we?

 

Note especially that none of that is saying that relativity is invalid model. The important bit is to understand exactly how does relativistic idea of reality arise as a necessary feature of your world model, while it never was a feature of the content of the data that your world model explains.

Ok, that definitely helps.

 

To talk about that goes little bit too deep into the presentation to comment on here, but suffice to say, it is in there, don't worry.

 

ps, none of the above was explicitly stated like that by DD. I did not just read his post and "agree with it". I had quite vague idea of what he was saying until I walked through the algebra (I think he kept it from me a bit so I wouldn't jump into conclusions )

 

Everything I'm talking about falls out from actually walking through the algebra and actually thinking about it myself. Yes it is trouble (especially for me), and no it does not fall out as immediately obvious before you walk through it, but I did see it in there myself, and yes it does appear no one has taken it seriously enough to look at it because all that information is not buried that deep.

 

And btw once you understand what is going on there, you can see bits and pieces of the same facts in modern physics here and there, just not quite as explicitly.

A question: What does this mean for physics then? Is it trivial and only really important at a "micro" level, or are there direct and profound consequences?

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain this, Anssih. I'm still far from understanding this (and all the implications), but I feel that much closer.

[modest]

Gonna miss Fringe... Gonna miss Fringe... :)

 

He was just saying, in a bit roundabout way, that two clocks, after making trips and returning back together, will not display the same measurement. So the statement "2 objects in same place at the same time can interact" refers to one definition of time, and "a clock measures time" refers to another definition of time; they do not co-incide.

 

You’ve come to the conclusion with no given logic or reasoning that “a clock measures time” should mean that the proper time for any time-like curve between events will be equal. This is not a good conclusion. First,

The problem that seems to be going around is that people want "velocity" and

"time"

or "duration" to be properties of a

single entity

regardless of necessary conditions these words require.

A clock measures time, but you cannot assume without some kind of deduction that the time measured by one clock will apply with respect to anything and everything. A clock, in fact, measures time relative to the clock itself—as I’m sure you know—called proper time. Your statement of locality:

"2 objects in the same place at the same time can interact"

This is true, but “in the same place” and “at the same time” as determined by who? You’ve assumed that the time of one clock should agree with the time from the other clock for the two to interact. That is not correct and I certainly don't see how "clocks measure time" would imply that. To correctly judge an interaction—two paths converge on a location making two events (when each ‘twin’ reaches home). The proper time for any single clock must be the same for both events in order for the twins to interact. The important thing is that you don’t mix frames of reference assuming that the time with respect to one path should delineate the time with respect to the other. This makes the two statements consistent when handled properly, but, more misleading:

"2 objects in the same place at the same time can interact"

A “place” is a point. It has no length. Two events which are co-located have the same location. Why then would the above want to find the length of proper time through a twin paradox like curve? It seems only to obfuscate the issue. Events are simultaneous if they have the same point in time, not if they have the same duration of proper time going back millennia. It would clearly make more sense to say:

"2 objects in the same place at the same instant can interact"

You can ignore the past history of the two objects and simply measure the time between co-located events. If it is zero then they can interact. That's it.

 

The idea that clocks measure time is compatible with objects interacting that are in the same location and instant.

 

I wrote this post in a rush. If it comes across as unclear I can draw diagrams and express myself more clearly on anything hazy...

 

~modest