Ben
In your post (Oct 23 08.30, 3rd para) you quite rightly pointed out that my view contradicts the 'norm'. In a later you responded: "I don't think fighting the essential meaning of relativity will achieve anything in the long run, but science won't suffer any from independent thought, right or wrong".
Indeed. So here is my reply. Apologies for the delay, apart from my knee, this provoked me to re-write and amalgamate two previous papers. It is the first half (5 pages) of that process. No prizes are available for guessing where it ultimately leads! However, the important point here is that apart from words, it identifies exactly where the mistake was made, and what it was.
Paul
Introduction
1 Our reality is existential sequence. So the entirety of whatever comprises its physical substance can only exist within that sequence in one definitive physically existent state at a time. Any such state (ie a physical reality of our reality) can be conceptualised into its constituent states, usually by association with 'things'. With the proviso that these are abstract concepts, ie they represent the differentiation of any given physically existent state at a higher level than what actually occurs.
Distance
2 Distance is determined by physically existent states, because it is the difference between them in respect of a spatial attribute, and differences do not exist physically. So distance can only involve physically existent states which exist at the same time. Which only occur in that state at that time. These attributes, and hence identification of difference, are not comparable between existent and non existent states.
3 Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of spatial dimension, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.
4 Indeed, any notion of duration within a physically existent state is incorrect, because in order to be existent, it cannot entail any form of change. If there is, then there must be more than one such state involved. Put simply, physical existence occurs in one spatially existent state at a time. However, distance can be conceived of as a singular example of change, ie a difference. In this sense, it can be expressed in terms of duration incurred, conceptually, if that suits the purpose. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, ie elapsed time. It is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity.
The misconception of time and timing
5 The misconception of time and timing revolved around the incorrect application of local time, and the flawed concept of simultaneity, by Poincaré in particular. Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, provides an explanation and so is used as a reference below.
6 A and B were each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned from this information, since they were variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.
7 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised. Which reveals that the actual reference against which all timings are compared is the concept of tick rate. Timing devices just 'tell' the time via their own tick rate, and are therefore only valid if they are all related to the same tick rate. This must be so, otherwise there can be no basis upon which to compare timings and progress an analysis. That is, if timing devices are set arbitrarily, and/or operating at different speeds and therefore out of synch, then the time, as 'told', is meaningless.
8 By definition then, the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, was known already. Additionally, presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) must have equalled t(b). Had the times been different, then there could not have been a distance AB, because A and B were not existent at the same time.
9 The comparison of AB to BA, which was unnecessary anyway, was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This is incorrect.
As explained in paragraph 4 above, there is no duration in such a spatial circumstance. Hence if the concept of duration incurred is used to quantify a spatial dimension, it can only be considered as an alternative type of spatial quantity. Any subsequent timing cannot be presumed to relate to AB, because either A and/or B could have ceased to exist. Such measurements only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at the time it was effected. And whether physically existent states, and/or the distance between them, remains the same over time, is irrelevant to the quantification of a unique difference.
10 The use of light speed (and the presumption that it was constant) as a method for quantifying distance was not the issue. Neither was the quantification of distance in terms of duration incurred, so long as it was understood. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if the calculation had been carried out properly. The error was assuming that physical existence, and hence any artefact dependent thereon, exists over time, rather than only in one state at a time.
Light
11 Whatever precisely happens, which is too much detail for this argument, there are certain fundamental characteristics of light which must be recognised. Light is an effect in photons which enables sight. That effect results from an atomic interaction, therefore the start speed of any given light is always the same, it is not created by collision. And as with any existent pheomenon, it will continue to move at that speed unless impeded. Furthermore, light travels in all directions after that interaction, and there is a relentless sequence of such interactions. So, when reference is made to light, it is usually referring to many different physically existent phenomena. From the perspective of recipient observers, several may be the same. But there is a difference between light as any given physically existent state, and light as in what sensory systems decode on reception. The other important consequence of this process is that observers receive, in the context of the sight sensory system, a photon based representation of any given physically existent state.
The misconception of the role of observation
12 Considering the AB example in terms of observation is usually deemed to be the way to explain it. So, in the context of observation, the time of existence, and the time of observation of that existence, were asserted to be the same (local) if whatever existed was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition, and care not to reify abstract concepts as a result of this simplification (see paragraph 11 above). The issue became establishing a relationship between two such times of existence when they were not in the "immediate proximity", ie accounting for the timing delay whilst light travelled AB or BA.
13 But this makes no difference to the fundamental problem as described in paragraphs 5-8 above. In short, either the timing relationship must already be known, or the analysis cannot proceed. Introducing the differential between timing of existence, and timing of observation of existence, is irrelevant, even if it is on a simplified basis. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise the timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time.
14 Therefore, any difference in the times when perceived from either A or B, can only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing is because they are observations. Physical existence was not affected, and occurred before observation anyway. Part of the problem being the simplification of actuality, by equating time of existence with time of observation if in "immediate proximity". Ontologically, this never occurs. There must always be a delay whilst light travels, because two different physical substances cannot be in the same spatial position at the same time, hence there is always a distance for light to travel. It is just that these vary. Simplifications of equating time of existence with time of observation of that existence when the distance is 'short', and differentiating light at a higher level than occurs existentially, can result in false conclusions, unless the approximations are understood.
15 A constant light speed, and no relative motion, was presumed, both of which would just further complicate the calculations, but not affect the underying logic (unless the force which causes relative motion does at the same time cause dimension alteration, which is a different issue). Alternatively, again, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB, and the timings of observation could reflect any combination of distance and time of existence.
16 By substituting c for v, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which is incorrect. Because that time involves duration incurred from A to B, and then back to A. Whereas, assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, since the notion of comparing one direction with another is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity of light is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so. Which is the definition of velocity.
17 The issue now is that the error in using subsequent timings to quantify durations, and the underlying misconception that there is duration (elapsed time) in distance, has been transferred to the valuation, and understanding, of c, since light speed was used as the method of determining those durations. To follow the argument through, why does E=mc2 by Cox & Forshaw, will now be used as a reference. It provides a more explicit explanation of the first stage of the argument, especially in respect of tick rate, but the errors are the same.
18 On pages 42 to 48 a rate of change (ie the tick rate of a timing device) is assessed using a reference with the same velocity (ie there is no change in spatial relationship), and a reference with a different velocity (ie there is a changing spatial relationship). A tick is defined as being the physical distance 2. It having been defined as the sum of both directions, each being a distance of 1. So, using c as the means of quantifying distance in terms of duration incurred, one tick has a duration of 2/c. In respect of the relatively moving reference, that tick has a duration of 2/√(c2 - v2). The ratio between these being 1/√(1-v2/c2) ie γ. Again, this explanation incorporates the same fundamental mistake, ie that distance can be quantified with elapsed time duration. Cox & Forshaw defined a tick which involved both directions of a distance, which was then compared with different references, one of which was moving. Einstein defined two local times which must have been the same, but deemed them to be different unless the time for light to travel one way was equal to the time taken to travel the other way, at a subsequent timing.
19 Contrary to the assertion on page 45, this is an optical illusion (see paragraph 20 below), as the context is observation, which is dependent on light. Generically, this effect revolves around the comparison of a rate of change as is, with that rate as is when referred to another reference which is altering. Unless very carefully defined, this can result in a conflation of references and the reification of observation. For example (though dimension alteration may occur as the result of force applied, but the illustration is about the commonality of γ, and reification):
- Einstein (1916 Section 12): "It therefore follows that the length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the direction of its length with a velocity v is √(1-v2/c2) of a metre. The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod". [And] "As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/ √(1-v2/c2) seconds, ie a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest".
20 The explanation of the optical illusion is as follows:
As light travels, there is always a delay between time of physical existence, and time of observation of that existence. That delay will vary as a function of the distance involved, and the speed at which the light actually travelled in each circumstance (ie the extent to which environmental conditions had an impact). Unless there is a particular form of interference, then the perceived (ie received) order of sequence will never vary from what occurred. Assuming a constancy of light speed for the sake of simplicity, then the perceived (ie received) rate of change of any given sequence will remain the same, so long as the relative spatial position of whatever is involved remains constant. This is because, while the value of the delay is different depending on distance, it remains constant as the distance remains constant. However, when relative distance is altering (ie there is changing relative movement), then the perceived (ie received) rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering. This giving the impression that the actual rate of change is slowing/speeding up, over time, but is an optical illusion, as the rate of physical change does not alter.
21 The issue is not about observation, per se. It concerns misunderstanding, and then misinterpreting, the relevance of references, having incorrectly factored elapsed time into the concept of distance. It also involves an oversimplification of the concept of light (see paragraph 11 above). In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, it must be recognised that we are, in effect, using a reference which conceives of any given physical reality (ie physically existent state) as being divided into a grid of spatial positions. Within any given physically existent state of our reality, the constituent states must have a definitive dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint), which can be defined as spatial positions 'occupied'.
22 'Mapping' other states that were existent at the same given time, would reveal not only, obviously, both the spatial footprint of those states and their comparability with each other, but also, distance. Which is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could include any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states involved, distance could involve a relationship in terms of separation of the states, or one within another, that again being with respect to specified dimensions.
23 Therefore, the reference for spatial dimension is the concept of a 'spatial grid'. And the reference for change is the concept of a tick rate. The measuring devices operationalise this, and enable quantification, but that is only valid when it correlates with the reference concept, which is manifest as the synchronisation of timing devices, or the calibration of spatial measuring devices.
24 One of the references being used for assessing the tick rate is not only different, but is altering. Apart from the fact that the tick incorporates the notion of both ways, ie incorrectly invokes elapsed time over which the assessment can then be made. To ensure comparability of results, either a reference needs to be consistent, or adjustments need to be made so that the effects of the variance in the reference are negated, ie it is effectively consistent. The whole raison d'être of any measuring system is that there is no absolute, so measurement is effected by comparison and the identification of difference. Which necessitates a reference. Obviously a reference is chosen usually on the basis of its characteristics being commensurate with the role, which in timing is constancy, and rapid, frequency of change. But anything could be a timing device, because everything changes. The key point is that once used as the reference, then that must be used consistently, so that other results are comparable (ie differences are identified with respect to the same reference). Which means either using the same reference, or ensuring that any variance in the reference is discounted.
25 Nothing is physically altering as a result of observation, ie timing devices are not ticking at different rates, nobody is aging faster, etc, etc. Observation is just that, observation. Physical existence occurs independently of that, before observation, and is dependent on a light based representation of reality anyway. For example:
- Page 43: "applying Einstein's logic means that light cannot speed up because the speed of light must be the same to everyone. This has the disturbing consequence that the moving clock must genuinely take longer to tick, simply because the light has farther to travel, from the perspective of the person on the platform".
The involvement of light is irrelevant. "From the perspective" are the key words, "genuinely" being redundant. A rate of change calibrated against one reference is just different if it is referenced to another relatively moving reference. And in the context of distance, there is no rate of change anyway.
