Absolute or Relative Motion... or Something Else? by Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves

Dear Daniel,

you avoid the problem connected with it: Neither Galilean nor Special Relativity is able to justify the privileged role of inertial frames of reference. Newton's law is epistemologically circular. Today this problem is only solved by means of an incomplete induction. Einstein was aware of this problem, which he tried to eliminate it by introducing Mach's principle into his general theory of relativity. But he failed. Even in his last lecture, given at the Palmer Physical Laboratory in April 14, 1954, he struggled with this problem. He compared the inertial frame with God Almighty. Like him it would be unaffected by anything else.In this lecture he also explained why the implementation of Machs principle into his GTR failed. --If you give up space, you have an enormous number of distances, and unhandy consistency relations.-- (Einstein, 1954)

Hence, I resist: THERE IS A PROBLEM and its solution determines essentially how we understand MOTION.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Dear Daniel (part 1)

I enjoyed reading your clear and well written essay. I would like to make some comments so you can understand some nuances in how we should understand absolute motion. As I argued in my reply to you in my entry, I hold that space is some sort of aether which for modern convenience we can call it quantum vacuum or better the zero-point field (ZPF) and therefore it can be considered as the PSR. Because relative to this ZPF all objects move (including light). If we have an object at rest this object is absolutely at rest otherwise it is in absolute motion. So, as you can see I am being truly relational, unless you disagree. I am going to quote one of the arguments that Newton gave in his famous scholim when he was arguing in favor of the existence of absolute motion (which is basically the same idea I am stating):

"But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or distinguished from one another by our senses, therefore in their instead we use sensible measures of them. For from the positions and distances of things from any body considered as immovable, we define all places; and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions, considering bodies as transferred from some of those places into others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. For it may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred.

But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions.

As you can see Newton was also truly relational in contrast to what most people believe about him, the problem is that Newton's space was envisaged as total emptiness and relating the motion to nothingness is meaningless. He also knew that it may not be possible to detect absolute motion but despite this when something moves it really moves not only relative to a reference object but, within the modern context, relative to the ZPF. This field pervades the whole universe and interconnects all physical objects (particles). Therefore, the water of the famous bucket experiment, moves relative to the ZPF which in Newton words would be "absolute space" and in Einstein words would be "the gravitational potential or the metric tensor". The problem with the metric tensor is that it is nothing but a mathematical object, pure geometry.

On the other hand, the programme your are endeavoring is not knew for me. I have tried in the past to reformulate mechanics getting rid of time and space. This would lead to a thermodynamic-like formulation of mechanics, but I found it fruitless basically because one cannot avoid the involvement of time-like parameter in the formulation. As I could see in your essay the parameter gamma plays the role of t, which appears to be redundant if one tries to get rid of one parameter and introduce another. My question here is, how is this parameter gamma going to be measured? With a clock?

To be continued...

Israel

Part 2

You also discuss the nature of time and take as a departure for your argumentation Newton's absolute notion. Indeed Newton's time appears to be unaffected by the motion of objects, it is a continuous flow that never stops, nor accelerates. I agree with you that the precursor of time is change/motion (CM) of things, this is what makes us feel the passage of time. I think that something that appears to be certain is that CM of things is seen everywhere in nature, I mean, there are things in the universe (motion of planets, etc.) constantly occurring following some physical laws, and in this sense the continuous occurrence of events can be thought of as a flow of CM and therefore this resembles a flow of time in the Newtonian sense. The inference we grasp from the previous reflexion is that to say that there is a flow of changes is equivalent to say that there is a flow of time. In physical terms this flow is measured with a clock (that is a material body that moves or changes) and is mathematically represented in physics as an "independent" variable. Certainly, it has to be independent because it seems that CM is an intrinsic aspect of the universe. According to the theoretical framework under consideration this variable is considered as a parameter (e.g. classical mechanics) or as a coordinate (relativity). Now, whatever the physical meaning of the variable is, I also hold that this CM has to be related to a reference CM. And since I am assuming a PSR I also hold that there is a preferred clock (time) and again if this clock is at rest in the ZPF one has a universal (absolute) time for all observers (see also the essay of Daryl Janzen). If a clock moves relative to the PSR it dilates as function of the speed (imagine again the light beam clock in which the mirror is held by a metallic bar that delimits the distance L).

The dilation effect is caused basically by the fact that the light beam --traveling through the ZPF-- will traverse an optical path length much larger than when the clock is at rest. If our light beam clock is placed perpendicular to the motion of the clock, the light beam will follow a diagonal trajectory in the forward and backward journeys. In this case there is no Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of the clock bar and we can calculate the amount of dilatation by using the Pythagoras theorem. But if we place the clock in a horizontal position the bar will undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction by the factor gamma and we have to consider this effect in our calculations. Hence, no matter the orientation of the clock with respect to the motion, the dilatation will be in the same amount.

The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is a consequence of the fact that the bar of the clock is made up of atoms (particles) glued by electromagnetic fields. Thus, to set the clock into motion from absolute rest we have to apply a force, this force will cause a reconfiguration of the atoms in the direction in which the force is applied manifesting itself as a contraction of the length.

Special relativity gives a geometrical explanation of these effects based on the two postulates (which as I argued in my essay is only one). In a certain sense we can say that relativity makes a mathematical abstraction of the physical properties (such as length) of real objects (please read Einstein's essay: Geometry and experience). The abstraction of extension of a material object is mathematically represented by a three dimensional manifold. There is a caveat to make here, one should distinguish between physical space (ZPF, vacuum and aether) and the mathematical representation of physical space. Newtonian space was envisaged as nothingness, total emptyness and its mathematical counterpart is Euclidean geometry. Recall that in special relativity space is also totally empty as in the Newtonian case and its abstraction is the Minkowskian space-time, which is a psedo-Euclidean space (due to the minus sign in the metric). General relativity does the same thing, from this perspective space is epitomized as non-Euclidean which warps according to the energy-momentum tensor, but again, it is just a geometrical abstraction.

Best wishes

Israel

PS. I have replied to your last post in my entry.

Dear Daniel,

I supposed that in the beginning we have only one frame which is absolute reference frame. Then we discover vectors and tensors in this frame. After it we discover such transformation of coordinates and time that we can study phenomena in relative reference frames using the same vectors and tensors but with relative coordinates and time.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

dear Daniel

I will post this also in reply to your post concerning my essay.

Thanks for suggesting I should read your essay.

I enjoyed it very much.

Of course we are pursuing different objectives, but there is a common drive toward seeking the building blocks of space-time notions in your essay and mine.

I am trying to take a certain leap in the (conceptually) unknown: doing physics without space, time, motion,,,,only particle detections and relationships among detectors,,,,this is after all what we really do operatively and I am intrigued by the possibility that if we stick to this minimalistic description, if we get read of the extra luggage of space-time inferences, perhaps we might travel more comfortably toward addressing some of the foundational issues we are facing

and by the way to me a clock is a box Alice gives to Bob: when the box is materially connected, in appropriate ways, to Bob's ``particle-detector box" the combination of the two boxes produces readouts which assign a certain number, "time", to each particle detection,,,,,it seems to me this is what is actually done by the objects we call clocks,,,

if we found a steady source of particles in nature, let me call them particles of type A, it could be all in one box: detector distinguishes two types of particles and uses number of particles detected of type A as time whereas it handles number of particles detected of type B as its actual detections, so it times the detections by producing readouts of pairs of numbers, correlations n_A,n_B (had value of the counter B equal to n_B in correspondence of the value of the counter A equal to n_A)

best wishes for the competition

Giovanni

Dear Daniel

You seem to overlook Newton's words, I quote them again to remark their deep meaning. "And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones". Notice how he was aware that for practical matters we use relative places and motions. Notice also how he was relating motion not only to reference bodies but also to space. I agree with you that is difficult (or may be impossible) to put a material object at rest relative to the ZPF, but despite that one cannot reject its existence. In my entry I replied to you and discussed how the principle of relativity should be understood. I would be glad if you take a look at it and answer the questions I raised there in relation to the rejection of the PSR.

As far as I can see you do not get the usefulness as I do, and so you conclude that, as absolute newtonian space, my arguments are devoid of utility. This is not the case. In my last replied to you I provided a counter example in allusion to the measurement of the one-way speed of light. So far, no experiment has ever measured it, but despite this, as we all have witnessed, the special relativity has been quite successful for physics. The case is similar with the ZPF, despite that the absolute position of an object relative to ZPF could not be determined I find the assumption elucidating and helpful for the construction of a strong and coherent theory. Just because fields (gravitational, electromagnetic) cannot be seen by the senses, this does not mean that they do not exist. Similarly occurs with the ZPF. Despite that it cannot be perceived by the senses we know it is there (do you deny this?), just recall the Casimir effect. So, I can assume it as a continuous fluid because this will help me to explain the body of observations. Moreover, the existence of this omnipresent field allows us to assume the PSR, again, despite the fact that (as Newton argued) we only had access to relative measurements. The ZPF and the PSR has to be considered, above all, because light, seen as a wave, demands it (as a photon the explanation becomes faint). Because its speed is defined relative to the ZPF, not relative to the source or any other material body. Light does not travel relative to the empty space as Newton contended, but relative to the ZPF. If you have understood this, I ask you to provide any objection to the motion of light. According to you, with respect to what physical entity do light move? What physical entity defines the speed of light waves?

In addition to these arguments, I pointed out another paradox in relation to the isotropy of the speed of light (see my reply to you in my entry). To avoid the paradox, it is necessary to assume the PSR. You say: if we can do mechanics without invisible concepts, why not do it? Because if do not introduce the PSR we arrive at several paradoxes. Furthermore, if a theory A assuming a PSR explains the same amount of observations as another theory B in which there is no PSR, I would chose theory A, because theory A would be free from paradoxes.

You: You should discuss these points more thoroughly with Julian Barbour, he´s the author of Shape Dynamics and strongly advocates Machian philosophy.

As I explained, Newton was also relational contrary to the customary view. The material objects we used as reference systems are in space, but one has be careful in how we conceive space. From my perspective, Mach misconceived the deep meaning of Newton conceptions because Mach thought of space as an empty vessel not as a massive fluid, this is why he claimed that the stars, and not space, were playing the major role in defining inertia and centrifugal forces.

Best Regards

Israel

Dan,

I liked your essay. The Barbour's shape dynamics is almost a form of dynamic triangulartion in a classical setting. This does give some operational notion of time. I will have to think about the meaning of this definition of time. I might imagine we could quantize this problem.

The Schrodinger equation describes the evolution of a wave function according to a Hamiltonian which is the generator of time translations. The Hamiltonian in classical gravity is zero, or NH = 0, for N the lapse function. This is a standard result of ADM general relativity. We then use Gauss' law to evaluate the amount of mass-energy in the space, but there is no boundary sphere around the universe by which one can integrate out the mass-energy contained within. This argument can be posed according to the nature of coordinate time in general relativity, where this is a frame dependent quantity and physics should not depend upon it. So the Schrodinger equation

i∂ψ/∂t = Hψ = 0

is seen to be zero on both the left and right hand side in a consistent manner. This is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Hψ = 0, which is the quantum form of the Hamiltonian constrant NH = 0. The inability to define mass-energy means there is no concrete definition of time.

The time evaluated from the Jacobi variational principle

δt = sqrt{m_iδx_iδx_i/(E-V)}

is related to a proper time, or an interval. This is different from the notion of time in quantum physics, which is a coordinate time. So for a particle sitting on a spatial surface its proper time is then something similar to Wheeler's discussion of a "bubble time" in the book he coauthored "Gravitation."

If you have time you might want to read my essay if you are interested in quantum gravity issues at all.

Cheers LC

Daniel Wagner (Part 1)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. To avoid discussing this topic in both entries, mine and yours, I will reply in yours only. So far I think we have reached a point in which we have made clear our positions. So I would like to summarize them.

I would like to start with one of your paragraphs: Let's get to a final conclusion. The PSR assumption weakens our theories in one respect (makes unobservable statements) but according to you it also explain some other phenomena. We should be aware of these strengths and weaknesses in order to choose, finally, what´s the most FRUITFUL conception of motion.

I definitely agree with you. I see your position as Einstein's, that is, parsimonious. I agree also with this, and this is why I revive the PSR and the aether. In Einstein times the aether was superfluous, but today I see it necessary and parsimonious to explain contemporary problems. You may have realized that theoretical physics has been in a state of stagnation for more than 30 years. I have studied and meticulously analyzed the present stage of physics along with its foundations. I have identified, as I reported in my essay, that there are no weighty arguments to reject the aether. You have contented that there are no experimental reasons to reject nor to accepted. So we can assume it because it is useful. So, according to my analysis, the rejection of the aether has led physics to the present state. First, since SR rejected the aether, physics has been deprived of a massive medium for light waves, since there is no medium for light there is no mechanism for light to lose energy (i.e., cosmological red shift). Based on Hubble's law, this led physicists to resort to the space expansion hypothesis whose consequence is the big bang theory (BBT). In turn the BBT has led physics to the problem of flatness, the horizon problem, dark energy and dark matter problems and so on and so forth. However, I found that by reintroducing the aether we are reintroducing a mechanism to explain the red shift and therefore there is no need of postulating expansion of the universe. It follows that there is no horizon problem and no dark energy problem (as you can see, the aether assumption is washing out needless hypotheses). The model also is based on Euclidean geometry and therefore the flatness problem is justified. Taking into account the massive character of the aether there is also no need to invoke dark matter. Dark matter can be seen simply as an increase of density of this fluid within galaxies. Under the aether proposal, the cosmic background radiation is not interpreted as the relic of the BB but as the radiation given off by the medium in thermodynamical equilibrium with the millions of stars in the universe. Of course, I am telling you in a few lines the highly condensed version of the story. So, if you do not have the whole background of how the events developed up to our present days, you won't believe me. And, the great problem that I see is that physicists are not even open to entertain this way of conceiving things.

You may recall that Hendrik Lorentz developed in 1904 the kinematical part of relativity departing from the principle that there was aether. Under this assumption he showed that the Lorentz symmetry (as we know it today) naturally emerges. On the contrary, Einstein saw the aether superfluous and derived the same kinematics from his two postulates. As early as 1899 Lorentz was aware that kinematical experiments could not tell about the state of motion relative to the aether. Let's call for the sake of illustration the Lorentz' approach, Lorentz theory (LT) and Einstein' approach, SR. These two theories explain the same physical phenomena, i.e. time dilation, length contraction, Doppler effect, addition of velocities, etc. The weakness of LT is that the aether, apparently, cannot be detected and, as Einstein (and you) argue, the notion of absolute position has no meaning. On the other hand, the weakness of relativity is the series of paradoxes that arise by denying the PSR (unfortunately, relativists do not even acknowledge the paradoxes, but let us assume for our purposes that they acknowledge them). So, the weakness of SR is the strength of LT and viceversa. Since these two theories explain the same body of experimental evidence, at first sight, it turns out to be inconsequential what theory we use to make calculations. But since SR had less assumptions physicists prefered SR above LT. So far so good.

Einstein also argued that fields were not states of any medium, that electromagnetic fields are independent realities, and so there is no need of aether. Following this line of thought you claim that the ZPF (aether) does not imply a PSR and that fields do not need a bearer, actually, according to the most modern theories the fields can generate space. Ok, I have no problem with this, it is one approach. But I am following another one. I hold a different view and support Lorentz approach, that space is a fluid and that fields are states of it even if it could not be detected. So, in analogy with the previous paragraph my weakness is that it may not be possible to detect the motion relative to the ZPF but despite this, my view has no paradoxes as in the case of SR. Of course, as I explained above, my proposal goes beyond relativistic matters, it endeavors to explain as much physics as possible at all scales.

to be continued...

Israel

Part 2

Fortunately, we have one important point of agreement. You acknowledge that a theory is valuable due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. And you also agree that if a theory assuming the PSR can explain most experimental observations, it would be worth of consideration. Indeed, this is why I support the PSR and the fluid assumption.

If we are looking for parsimonious theory, I think I have it because it is based on only one single postulate, that is, that space is a massive fluid. This postulate alone suffices to explain most of the problems of modern physics. But this requires a radical change in our present conceptions of the physical world. By this I mean, for instance, that we have to abandon the assumption that fields do not need a medium. Certainly, this is the opposite view that you and current physics hold and this is a big problem. So, I am not going to convince you or anybody else only by epistemological or ontological arguments but also by providing a new theoretical and consistent framework where the facts could be satisfactorily explained. Actually, I am working on this part.

Among the problems that my proposal has the potential to explain (or eliminate) are: the dark matter and dark energy problems, the expansion of the universe, the flatness problem, the vacuum catastrophe and the horizon problem (which from the perspective of my proposal are all illusory problems in the sense that they are the result of the choice of the fundamental assumptions in the prevailing theories such as there is no aether, fields are not states of the aether, etc.), the fly-by and pioneers anomalies, the baryon asymmetry, the GZK limit, the cosmological constant problem and so forth. Some other problems of theoretical character such as the Hawking paradox, the arrow of time, the reality of the wave function, the wave-particle duality and the nonlocality of QM can also be solved. In fact, my proposal has the potential to make QM to be utterly local. In addition to all of this, the theory I support not only will solve most of the problems but also will make the physics very intuitive. Modern theories lack this virtue and so they lose credibility. Their lack of an intuitive picture is the result of too much mathematical formulation and very few philosophical reasoning. Fortunately, physicists have realized this and they are going back to the old way of doing physics (e.g., check the Trouble with Physics of Lee Smolin or look up at the Herman Minkowski Institute on the web), actually this contest is a recognition that the old way of doing physics should be recovered.

to be continued...

Israel

Part 3

Finally, you said: guy has filmed light moving! Well, if your idea is to present this experiment as a test that the one-way speed of light or any other physical entity can be measured, I invite you to analyze it in great detail so you can convince yourself that measuring speeds is not just defining a distance and measuring the time it takes for a physical entity to travel it. This will be useful as an exercise for you to realize that the one-way speed of light can not be measured. It will also help you to understand that one has to assume a special system of reference where the one-way speed of light is isotropic (see my reference 17 to follow the approach).

You: My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist)''

Can´t see why they are real because the PSR exist.

According to the LT objects in motion really contract and clocks in motion really dilate because to accelerate an object from absolute rest one has to apply forces. Being the aether a fluid, the aether opposes to the applied force and the object deforms (contracts). Clocks in motion relative to the aether dilate because electromagnetic fields are states of the aether and so fields have to travel longer distances in the aether as the clock moves through it. Again, imagine the light clock placed in a perpendicular direction to the motion. Light has to travel in a diagonal in the forward and backward journeys, covering a longer distance than when the clock is at rest on the aether. The faster the clock moves the slower the ticks because light traveling trough the aether will take a longer absolute time to reach the upper mirror and go backwards. So, as measured by an observer at rest in the aether, the process of completing a tick lasts more while in motion than at absolute rest.

If you have understood this picture, then you will probably understand why it is said that in SR relativistic effects are only apparent and not real. The word "REAL" implies an absolute system of reference in the sense of LT. Since in SR there are no PSRs, the effects cannot be real or absolute. To understand this problem further you have to study it deeper. My suggestion is that you should do the exercise above and consider my reference 17 and references there in. As long as a relativist does not spend some time studying this problem he will never understand it (and what is worst he will be denying it for the rest of his life).

I hope you have grasped a little the great importance of reintroducing the aether and the PSR. So, if you are interested we could be in touch far beyond this forum. In any case, I see in you someone with great potential for physics, and it would be a shame if you focus your efforts in something fruitless. It took me many years of hard work to realize where the problem was and I'll move on with this approach because I am 99.9% that I am right. If you would like to join my endeavor now or in the future you will be more than welcomed.

Good luck in your life and the contest

Best regards

Israel

Dear Daniel

I have commented above all the problems that the reintroduction of a medium for light solves. I do not understand what you mean by "if you can show more concretely how the PSR assumption might lead to fruitful achievements I will be convinced". Do you want to see the references? If you do, check my reference 19, and look for C. Christov papers. He develops a theory assuming space as a continuous massive fluid and propose some experiments to detect it. By the way that paper also analyses some misconceptions about the michelson-morley experiment. There will also find my email, in case you would like to keep in contact.

On the other hand, If you are interested in understanding paradoxes of SR and how relativists see other people who denied the veracity of SR, I recommend you to read the essay of Chris Kennedy which is related to the clock paradox.

Best regards

Israel