[deleted]
Further note; Yes, you did say "slowed down," so I should have inferred redshift.
There May Be a False Assumption in the Minkowskian Geometry That Led to Block Time, Which Disagrees With Quantum Theory on Whether the Future Already Exists - A Short Look Through the Clues About Tim
Yes you switched to doppler effect, it was about time dilation. I didn't have time to explain, and I don't now. No offense and best of luck. And doesn't time go fast when you're on this site, I thought it was two weeks ago... best wishes, JK
Well, looking at it, there clearly was more misunderstanding than I thought, so sorry. I meant two observers passing each other, moving in opposite directions. There's only time dilation at that point, and each sees the other slowed down. But I can see that it could be taken as being about the Doppeler effect. JK
[deleted]
Jonathan,
I wasn't trying to give offense and if I may seem presumptuous, it is because I do see it as an important point. Having been flipping through the conversations, it seemed as though your discussion with Daryl was circling around this point and I thought I'd offer it up again, since you hadn't seemed to have digested it the first time. Your response though, to take a minor feature of the larger argument, assert it's wrong without specifying why, than dismiss the entire argument on that basis, is the usual reaction I get from those who think there are no fundamental issues to discuss and only another particle, field, dimension, epicycle, string, membrane, energy, etc. is all that is required. Since you see no reason to enlighten me further and I obviously don't impress you, further conversation would seem fruitless.
I would add though, that the doppler effect is one of those issues physicists like to use, then deny the implications. Specifically, if cosmic redshift is due to recession of the sources, it is doppler effect, but than to say that since we appear to be at the center of this expansion, it must be an expansion of space, not an expansion in space doesn't make sense, because a constant speed of light is still used.
If two galaxies are x lightyears apart and we say that after y billion years, they will be 2x lightyears apart, that uses the speed of light as a stable measure of space. How can there be a stable measure of space, if space is expanding? The train moving away down the track doesn't stretch the track, but the train moves along that stable distance. The same applies to galaxies. If they are moving away in stable units of distance, how can it be said that space is expanding? Of course, when I raise this point, the usual reaction is similar to your response; I'm too naive to understand and the enlightened minds cannot be bothered to cure my stupidity.
That's why I try not to bother the believers and only discuss such issues with skeptics.
Regards,
john
Hello John,
it seems to me you're not interested in a real discussion, that's why I've given up trying. You say:
"Your response though, to take a minor feature of the larger argument, assert it's wrong without specifying why, than dismiss the entire argument on that basis, is the usual reaction I get from those who think there are no fundamental issues to discuss".
But what really happens is very different. When I try to zoom in on one area of what you say, and do what we do in physics, ie try to pin something down, and start the laborious and time-consuming task of showing you what no-one else may bother to tell you - that there is nothing substantial underneath this or that idea - then instead of taking my points head on, you dance away somewhere else. You've done this several times. Not interested in really pinning anything down, but without that it's mostly poetry, and not the best I've read.
Your idea about metabolism I've shown to be wrong, in a clear, specific way. If the clues were such that that was possible, it would be simple, and by about 1940 there would have been a theory of that kind, with many adherents. There isn't because that idea doesn't work, nor do many others of yours. I've shown you exactly why with one, but you don't want to know. Perhaps it's more fun thinking the ideas work. Well, I've tried.
Best wishes, Jonathan
[deleted]
Jonathan,
The story of the twins is analogy. Everything is built up from quantum processes, from chemistry, to biology, to mechanical clocks, so if the quantum rate runs faster, as on gps satellites, then everything emerging from these processes runs faster as well, including metabolism, thus one twin ages faster.
I'm just not sure how my use of a common analogy disproves the observation that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.
If the twins pass each other in the street, walking in opposite directions, then as they pass, each is seeing the other in slow motion. That isn't consistent with your explanation. If the clues were such that they fitted your explanation, it would be a much, much easier puzzle. Now let's leave it, best wishes, JK
[deleted]
Jonathan,
No problem. Life is very complex and we all have varied and varying physical perspectives, both spatial and temporal, as well as the ideas to try to make sense of them.
[deleted]
I agree that one must define Time in terms of motion. Additionally, it seems reasonable to assume that similar physical results must have, at their base, common causes. That is the path I've taken in an attempt to determine the nature of Time. So, Gravitational Redshift, Cosmological Redshift, and doppler shifts must result from the same physical cause. To that end I prefer to look at the nature of spacetime for an answer. Since red and blue doppler shifts involve a change of wavelength caused by a position change of the emitter relative to the receiver, I conclude that some manifestation of spacetime must induce a change in wavelength for the other two types. To that end one very convenient model can be postulated wherein spacetime density increases in the presence of matter (along with a time change) For an emitted light ray leaving a gravitational field its wavelength increases as it exits the field(and enters less dense spacetime) The reverse obviously occurs when the ray enters the field. Time must then be a consequence of the relative spacetime density.
If this is valid then motion must be related to the interaction of matter with its local space. Acceleration must have the same common origin and the same common result in interactions with local spacetime. That is, if gravitational acceleration is caused by an increased spacetime density in the direction of motion, then this also implies that an accelerated object must induce an increased spacetime density ahead of itself.
This comes with a lot of ramifications for Physics! Mach's Principle as an explanation for inertia is only the first Foundational Leg to collapse. But, if that goes then what must be concluded about the FLRW model? Matter here cannot have any gravitationaal influence across the Universe!
As for the two apparent types of time, the entire Universe is in motion and matter densities (and spacetime densities) vary throughout the Universe depending whether one considers a perspective from the point of view inside a Void or within the bound nature of Matter Filaments. Time must be Relative according to ones' motion or relationship to local matter.
Hello Lloyd,
This isn't meant to be a platform for trotting out our theories, though you'd never know from looking at this site. For that reason, in my essay I've just said that I think we need a new interpretation for SR, and set out a rational argument that the existing one doesn't fit what we observe.
So I'm not going into discussions on theories that land here, unless the discussion relates to the general one. But I'll throw my Kent Brockman two cents back, in case it's of interest.
To me, you start with a principle that can be shown to be wrong, and then you don't go by it anyway. You say that similar results must have similar causes, and then you say that therefore all wavelength shifts must be caused by the same thing. But there are several kinds of redshift that are well understood, and they have different causes. There's the Doppler shift, refraction shift, and bremstrallung, for instance. We know their causes, and they're all different. So the general principle you start with doesn't look too good.
But then you don't go by it anyway, which actually helps. You then decide that the gravitational shift, because it must have the same cause as the Doppler shift, is caused by differences to the 'density of spacetime' - this is a completely different cause from that of the Doppler shift.
And it goes on - you don't define spacetime, but you need to not only because its density changes in your picture, but also because it has time in it, and you get time out of it the other side as well - "Time must then be a consequence of the relative spacetime density." So you need to define it early on.
If you want to talk about the general subject matter then do, you haven't so far.
Best wishes, Jonathan
Thanks Daryl,
sorry so late in replying. It has been a pleasure to discuss these things with you (mainly on Edwin Klingman's page), and I do respect your opinion, and your approach to physics in general.
Warm regards, Jonathan
[deleted]
Superdeterminism is delete all difference between past, present, future.
See my analogy book as Parmenides
PS I don't want you to feel you can't answer those points, I just mean we should keep to the general discussion generally... JK
I guessed that this post had been sent to more than one essay page, and found that it had. I also have trouble understanding it.
But best wishes, JK
[deleted]
Jonathan
What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft
Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?
arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]
Hello Yuri,
Thank you, it's fascinating, I'll read it again when I can. But ultimately the cellular automaton interpretation of quantum theory is still a mathematical interpretation, and I'm interested in truly conceptual interpretations, as I see the problems before us as conceptual ones. (John Wheeler thought the same - when asked what the best hope of progress for QT was, he said finding a conceptual basis from which QT could be rederived). And because an interpretation is needed for SR as well as QT, and ideally one should be found that reduces the problems of both, it seems that something very simple is needed. To me, although the CA interpretation is very simple mathematically, it's too complicated conceptually.
Also, I don't agree with his attempt to get out of non-locality. David Albert has argued that Bell's work means non-locality in inevitable in any interpretation of QT, not just in a hidden variables interpretation.
Best wishes, Jonathan
[deleted]
Have you read my essay?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Yes, will look at it again when I can. I liked your analogy of the book and the audio book - that describes exactly the two levels of time that I compare in my essay. But rather than look at the 'advantanges and disadvantages' of these versions of the universe, I've tried to relate them to the actual conceptual clues we have.
I'm amazed at how people ignore the conceptual clues, and look only at the mathematical clues. (I don't mean you, in fact your essay is refreshingly conceptual). Physics is detective work, and we can use logic to rule possibilities out, and to limit the possibilities about what kind of answer we might be looking for. But people are so absorbed in the mathematics, they can't see the wood for the trees. And yet to get to quantum gravity, it's almost certain that conceptual progress will be needed. The problems with time are in the conceptual department, and no mathematical advance alone would be likely to remove them.
Anyway, best wishes, Jonathan
Jonathan,
I very much appreciate the clarity and intelligence of your essay. And I agree that the "block time" concept is a major obstacle to a deeper understanding of physics -- but I don't think that Minkowski's spacetime is the problem.
As Stein pointed out back in the 60's, what the Rietdijk-Putnam argument disproves is the Newtonian notion of a single present moment "now" that applies to the entire universe simultaneously. It shows us that we shouldn't think of the universe as "moving through time" all at once, as a single vast object. But this has nothing to do with the physical "now" that can actually be experienced, from any particular point of view in spacetime.
This is one of the issues I dealt with in my essay ("An Observable World") -- unfortunately I tried to get way too much into that essay, so I'm afraid the arguments aren't very clear. But I tried to show (in Section 3) that Minkowski's geometry is completely different from that of a static, 4-dimensional "block universe". The problem is not with his geometry, but with our traditional way of theorizing about the physical world as if we could stand outside of it and describe it as an object.
I agree with you that physics needs to come to grips with the time as we experience it happening around us. What Minkowski's geometry shows us is not that this aspect of time is illusory, but that it's essentially local. It shows us that my "here and now" is not physically related to other places and times by means of any spacelike "time-slice" through a 4-dimensional block, but through a web of back-and-forth light-speed connections.
The deeper problem here is that we haven't yet learned to conceptualize the physical world that can actually be experienced, from inside. In many papers on time, the notion of a local present moment is just rejected out of hand, as "solipsistic" -- as if our physical location in spacetime were something "subjective". The main point of my essay was that physics needs to describe not only the objective structure of the world but also the internal structure of physical interaction through which information becomes observable, in specific local contexts.
So I don't think we should reject the "block universe" picture. It's entirely reasonable to spatialize time, to imagine it as if it were a 4th spatial dimension -- as we do in all our diagrams that put space on one axis and time on another. It's obviously helpful to visualize dynamics this way -- but we have to avoid confusing this picture with the more fundamental one given by Minkowski, representing the structure of spacetime that can actually be seen from inside.
This contradicts the argument you make in your first section, that we have to choose one or the other view of time. I think both are equally important in understanding physics, though not equally fundamental. I realize this view is unusual, and I've struggled to find ways to express it. I hope you'll find time to look at my essay and let me know if it makes any sense to you.
Thanks again for your excellent work -- Conrad
Hello Conrad,
thank you very much for what you say, I really appreciate it. I'll read your essay.
I have two points to make - the first is that I don't think you understand why the Rietdijk-Putnam argument rigourously rules out any possibility of motion through time existing at all (if Minkowski was right). You sound surprised that people talk as if our position in time is subjective, but according to Minkowski spacetime, it unavoidably has to be. I haven't read Stein, but it sounds like he was writing immediately after the shocking discovery in the '60s, and trying to cushion the blow. But since then it has been worked through and understood, and without at least some adjustment to Minkowski spacetime, you simply get motion through time not exisitng.
The reason is straightforward - it's that the difference between past and future is entirely observer-dependent in some situations. That means it has to be perception-based, and has no reality outside the observer.
But as you quite rightly say, SR leads to local time rates, which can't be connected up at all. I'm saying that this local aspect makes the very long distance simultaneity required for the Rietdijk-Putnam argument questionable. But if simultaneity at a distance only applies within the light cone, block time then no longer applies at all, removing the confusion about time that we have nowadays, and allowing what we observe to be real.
Incidentally, I've shown on George Ellis' page that the kind of adjustment he tries to make in his EBU (emerging block universe) approach doesn't work, because this observer-dependence for the difference between past and future still arises. There's a need to remove block time in any form.
I hope this makes sense, best wishes,
Jonathan