Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time by J. C. N. Smith

JCN

"For some bizarre reason which I've yet to fathom, however, you seem unwilling and/or unable to comprehend and/or accept the notion of *defining* particular times as being equivalent to particular configurations of the universe"

No I don't. I have always been saying that 'what physically exists can only be defined as at any given point in time, because it is constantly being superseded by another existent state which is different'. Indeed, the fastest rate of change must define the real duration of a point in time. But that is not what you were saying.

You said in the previous post: "As I've tried to say numerous time, in numerous different ways, there *cannot* be two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as a sequence progresses. The reason is that if there are two or more physically existent states, then these two or more physically existent states equate (by definition) to two or more particular times! Can you accept "yes, I agree with you" as an answer on this point?" And then you repeat Barbour's words in this post.

To which I say: No. Because the reason there cannot be two or more physically existent states in a sequence in existence at the same time, is because this is not physically possible. Existence can only occur with one physically existent state at a time in any given sequence. Each existent state being superseded by another, which is different, because something caused alteration(s) to the preceding one, which has now ceased to exist. And so on. The point is about the very nature of existence and how it must be, in order to occur, and then re-occur. And another way of expressing this is that therefore, there can be no form of change within any given physically existent state, because change involves more than one. It is an identified difference as the result of comparison, and comparison necessitates more than one.

The measuring system timing just reflects that fact, otherwise it would be useless. Although, because we probably could not achieve any practical system anyway, it does not differentiate down to a real point in time (as determined by physical reality). But if we could establish what that was, then when necessary, we could apply a conversion rate to whatever frequency was being used (eg crystal oscillation, some atomic event).

Anyway, the point is that the 'one at a time' rule is not determined by timing, it is a function of how physical existence must occur. It is that simple. Now, in the sense of using the notion that one 'equates' to the other, then we jointly arrive at the same point. And I have always agreed with a number of points you make. But, the problems arise when you have time/timing being the driving factor, and not existence. And I would certainly agree with your last point. Philosophers babbling in the background is irrelevant, those pursuing physics should have identified how reality occurs first. If one intends to do some woodwork, then it is best to know what wood is before starting, and not turn up with a pair of scissors and a nail file just because the latter are tools.

Paul

you are welcome,

Sorry but I am less on FQxi. It is always the same things here.A kind of business, that is all. I have others things to think about. It is just a kind of publicity for a small team. Sad reality !!! for the sciences community.

The interactions are not really relevant.

I will read the essays and I will critic but frankly fqxi begin to irritate me with their pseudo sciences.Furthermore with the pseudo congratulations, that do not arrange my perception of fqxi.I thought at the begining that they were more professional !!!

Good morning to the cia and the sri JCN Smith.and revolution spherization of course. with humility, sciences and rational determinism of course !!!

Regards

You know JCN Smith,

I beleive that a team around FQXi, with several vanitious and frsutrated lacking of generality in their analyzes,implies confusions. New York WAKE UP !!!

For their information, I see their play and the false threads.I find all that very sad from a kind of pseudo team.It shows their stupidity. They think simply that they are intelligent but in fact they are simply a team of pseudo scientists with false maths. I am surprised that some parts of sciences community is not rational, perhaps it is due to this monney and the taste of opulences.In all case the rational deterministic sphere is not to sell!!!

A pure comedy from a team of algorythmic players. It is not my road. Perhaps it is time that they learn real sciences.

Regards

and a nobel, one !

ahahah let's laugh in live JCN .wait I am going to create an algorythm for a pure selectivity of priorities......and the objectivity shows to the subjectivity that a water drop is like a star :)

The nature of abstraction, yes of course and what after a pure play about the determinism and the irrationalism, ....any sense ! in all irony of course.

Regards

JCN

"Am I correct in thinking that you think I disagree with you on this?"

Not necessarily, ie the fact as such I think you do agree with. But you stated the reason was time, whereas I am stating that it is a truism of existence. That is physical existence, it must be how it occurs, ie one at a time in a sequence. Timing is irrelevant, that system must just reflect that fact.

"Yes. But the *only* thing that's different from one existent state to another is the *arrangement* of the stuff, not the stuff itself!"

Yes, obviously. Otherwise there would be no existence at all. Though I would hardly use the word "only". We have to establish precisely what substance(s) are non divisible and the nature of them, ie what is stuff. And as I've said before, the word "configuration" has connotations of just movement/organisation, whether you intend that or not. Whereas I say physically existent state (which encompasses everything which can be physically defined about something as at a point in time). Or put the other way around, all that has remained the same is the fundamental substance, whatever that might be. By definition, if it has innate properties (ie generically they are part of the substance), these will have altered in their manifestation/value, and the substance may well be occupying a different relative spatial position. And yes it is a new "particular time". But that is because it is different, ie a different physically existent state (albeit ultimately, by definition, of the same fundamental stuff). This must therefore be represented by a different point in time, if we are timing the sequence of change. How it affects timing is a consequence. The nature of physical existence determines how timing works. Keep focussing on the fact that all we have is something, and only something at a point in time, time, space, change, etc are conceptual derivatives of that.

"Yes, there may be particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and atoms undergoing spontaneous disintegration, etc"

Aha. Now, that cannot be 'stuff' that is doing that (assuming the observation is valid). Because, by definition, whatever constitutes 'stuff' endures over time. It is the foundational commodity of physical existence. And there has to be something of that nature, otherwise there cannot be physical existence. So these must be 'effects' not 'things', in simple language.

Paul

JCN

Language is indeed a very poor tool for achieving unequivocal meaning. But from the rest of your post, I am not sure what are "those points where we appear to diverge".

Towards the end of the post you ask 'why scientists do not get to grips with this?' Yes they need to get to grips with what timing really is, but more importantly they need to understand how physical existence occurs, which proves that, apart from anything else, time (as conceptualised) does not exist. But it proves a whole lot of other things, which are disturbing. Note my comment, which I have posted many times before, about the urban myth as to what constitutes SR. You see, I am just a punk who with no previous baggage, read the material, as is, which is dangerous!!

You may have noticed that I am only on here early morning, that is because renovating my son's new property takes precedence, including writing essays. However, I now have one, posting that will be even more dangerous!!!

Paul

JCNS

"But what is this talk of essays and urban myths and SR and dangerous ideas?"

Yes, I sent one in yesterday, I felt it has settled enough, though subsequently I noticed I'd screwed up the paragraph numbering! Also, I am going on holiday for 6 weeks soon (have a camper van) as I live near the Tower of London and the Olympics will cause relentless traffic jams (lanes have been designated Olympic officials only).

My reference to urban myth is the presumption that what was written in 1905 equals SR, which it does not. When Einstein introduced it, he clearly defined what it constituted. I do not make this point in the essay, only a glancing reference to the original idea behind relativity. In fact, if I may, I will post something here, though it is others that are talking about it. You can always delete it as inappropriate if you wish. Incidentally, time took up a 5 line paragraph.

"Is the configuration of your son's property any different now than it was when you wrote that post?"

Yes, at the atomic level. Not really at the level we are interested in, ie ceiling cracks have not got bigger, the kitchen has not disintegrated further, etc!! The problem here is secondary schools. This property is right next to a very good one, so having got the first of three daughters into it, they will then move again. Costing me a fortune, apart from effort, but I am from a generation that prospered with cast iron pensions and inflating property prices.

A more serious answer to your question is that our efforts have meant that a physically existent state which would have occurred, did not occur. It's not influence in the sense that one has influenced something pre-existent. People tend to talk about the 'future' as if it is something 'already out there'.

Paul

JCNS

Technically yes, in so far as my partner has a Blackberry tablet she was given for her birthday. But no, in effect. Because I am not going to start typing or reading responses, assuming there are any. This is unfair on Linda who works, whereas as I am retired. So yes, this was a concern in taking part, but that is a function of having the competition over the summer break.

Within reason, reports are just that, reports. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the Olympics per se, but they are sold to ordinary people on the basis of unsubstantiated hype. The traffic will be a nightmare. People are being encouraged, civil servants in particular, to stay at home and work, the cost is enormous, and you do not need the excuse of Olympics to regenerate an area, if you really want to.

I have written something this morning, makes a change from painting! I had a look at blogging, but could not understand it. Wind up mechanical toys were the new technology when I was young. So for now, I will 'dump' it on your blog. Thanks. Hopefully you will find it interesting, but I do appreciate it has nothing to do with your essay.

Paul

Eintein and an urban myth

It is commonly assumed that Special Relativity is that which was written in 1905, or at least most of it. This is not so. In propounding General Relativity, of which 1905 was effectively a 'first draft', Einstein had to resolve the significance of light. There are two key words in 1905. When stating the two postulates, he writes that they are: "only apparently irreconcilable". This is, of itself, a peculiar statement, because he is proposing a new theory which is based only on these ("These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies"). And both are understandable statements in their own right. Yet he is already aware of a potential conflict. That is, all the variables as stated in 1905 cannot co-exist in a cohesive theory.

The first postulate (the principle of relativity) is a logical truism, ie for physical laws to be valid they must hold whatever reference point is used. Another way of putting this is that physical existence is independent. Use of phrases such as 'frame of reference' have nothing to do with observation, per se, they are about referencing. That is, as there is no known absolute, everything has to be deemed in terms of its relativity, ie difference when compared to another. And in order then to ensure comparability, that reference must be used consistently, and logically (as opposed to practically) any potential reference could be chosen. But there must be one, otherwise a judgement cannot be made. Something is only X when compared to something else, and the calibration of X is dependent upon that reference. But the physically existent state which manifests X does not alter.

In respect of the second postulate about light, this is correct physically, as written. Light is created as the result of an atomic interaction (ie not a collision), and therefore always starts with the same physical speed. That is, the speed of that which was involved in the interaction is irrelevant. From the perspective of a sensory system, that resultant physical effect-light-is a representation of what was involved in the interaction, but of itself, it is a physical entity. And as such, it will continue to travel at that speed, just like any other physical entity, unless impeded in some way. Impediment does not occur in vacuo, by definition, a condition invoked in 1905.

It has to be remembered that the start point was concerns about light speed, earth movement and ether. This did not appear to be, or perhaps actually was not, borne out by the Michelson and Morley experiments. But to counterbalance that apparent result, and hence maintain the presumptions about light, the hypothesis was proposed that matter physically alters in dimension in the line of motion. That is, when forces acting thereon become imbalanced, the shape and momentum of the matter changes whilst that circumstance obtains. Equilibrium is subsequently restored, and matter regained its original shape and resumed its travel at a constant momentum. Whether this is physically correct or not is another issue. So, 1905 has a combination of alteration consequent upon alterations in force, with an 'unaffected' light. That is, it is in vacuo, but everything else is not. There must be one common condition.

The resolution of the 'apparent irreconcilability' was pursued by Einstein in section 7 of SR & GR 1916. The example used is incorrect, the ray of light and man walking are not equivalent (to be precise, the man is of the earth system, the ray of light is not). He has not considered light as a physically existent entity, and the application, as opposed to the principle, of relativity is flawed. So this has not proved his point from the previous section, that is, that the Theorem of the Addition of Velocities employed in classical mechanics, was no longer valid. And this cannot be so anyway, because in order to effect any judgement, a reference is necessary, and the calibration of the attribute will be a function of that reference. In simple terms, the variable of dimension alteration became subsumed by the supposed variability of time, but time does not vary and is not physically existent, there is only timing. Therefore, in essence, the problem was 'resolved', but for the wrong reason.

Because he then writes (para 5): "In view of this dilemna there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity.

That is, one of these variables cannot co-exist, assuming they are invoked properly and dimension alteration is a physical fact (leaving aside that the effect is being explained in terms of time variance).

And then he writes (para 6): At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibilitiy between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity.

That is, a special theoretical circumstance is invoked. Where, because of the circumstance invoked, everything can, by definition, co-exist, as defined. It proves nothing, and is a tautology. Neither is it the circumstance of 1905. It is also 'disconnected' from GR, ie that is not developed from it. GR is really the only theory.

Einstein defines SR as:

Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 1:

"We call this postulate "The Special Relativity Principle." By the word special, it is signified that the principle is limited to the case, when K' has uniform translatory motion with reference to K, but the equivalence of K and K' does not extend to the case of non-uniform motion of K' relative to K. The special theory of relativity does not depart from classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo."

"According to the special relativity theory, the theorems of geometry are to be looked upon as the laws about any possible relative positions of solid bodies at rest."

Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:

"the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."

"In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18:

"the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let us once more analyse its meaning carefully. It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must only be considered as a relative motion."

"If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called "the principle of relativity,""

"we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galileian law holds with respect to it: A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line."

"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion."

So SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-no gravitation

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)

-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)

-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

When gravity is present, then the condition of in vacuo, which was invoked in 1905, is withdrawn. In other words, light and matter co-exist in the same condition, ie a real world where they are subjected to common forces. Light is therefore affected, as Einstein states. One example being:

Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22:

"However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K'). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance...... In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

JCNS

Tee hee. But it is not the essay.

Paul

JCNS

As said above, this is not the essay. Over the past year many people have spoken of SR, two I know of very recently. I always say X, where X is a reasonably short post, this is just X. It could probably be expanded (and improved) a little further, but I got the 'urge' to get that down on paper yesterday. In answer to your question, then the presumption I'd be questioning is that 1905=SR, and SR = what Einstein said it did. But that is not a 'physical' assumption. Knowing what SR actually is, ie as opposed to GR, in accordance with what the author said, seens to me to be a good start point fro, which to then comment on them.

Paul