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

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

Dear Daniel

Sounds good.

With respect to your question, I can only conceive two ways of modelling physics, absolute or relative; although I uphold the opinion that when something undergoes forces, it really moves.

If you have realized, contemporary physics assumes that space is only geometry (epitomized by the GR) and filled with fields (fermion, gauge, Higgs, EM). I hold the opposite view. Space is a massive fluid (not empty geometry) and the fields are states of this fluid. I found this view more useful than the other.

I also thank you for this stimulating and interesting discussion and I hope we could keep in contact in the future.

Best regards

Israel

Daniel

As per your request on my blog

Forget the theories, and just consider the fundamental nature of physical reality as is manifest to us. There being no other, unless one resorts to belief/assertion.

Motion is the incremental alteration in relative spatial position. As with any such attribute, it can only be calibrated by using a reference. Any reference can be selected, but having done so, that must be used consistently so that results are comparable. So, by definition, motion can only be known in relative terms. We are unable to transcend our existence.

To establish motion (and other features such as size, etc) we conceptualise reality as being in a spatial grid. The distance from one point to another on this grid being the equivalent of the smallest 'thing' in reality. Thus at any given point in time, A is deemed to occupy X configuration of spatial points, whilst B occupies Y. As at each subsequent point in time any alteration can be identified. That is the easy bit to say! In practice I doubt if this could be achieved. But our failure to be able to discern physical reality at its properly differentiated level does not mean we can then just embark on a false approach.

There is no existent phenomenon which corresponds with space, it is only 'things' which exist. Neither is there any time in physical reality, because the concept of timing relates to the rate at which change occurs. That is, it is associated with a feature of alteration between realities (ie speed of alteration), not of any given one.

Paul

Daniel,

You wrote: "...quantum mechanics uses a mathematical and conceptual formalism suitable for an absolutist picture while general relativity is almost perfect relational."

The opposite is true: Quantum mechanics uses Newtonian concepts according to which any motion (speed), even that of light, is relative. In Einstein's relativity the motion (speed) of light is absolute. If Walther Ritz had lived longer, the name "Einstein" would be unknown nowadays:

Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."

Alberto Martinez: "Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Daniel,

Excellent writeup! A few remarks come to mind. First, regarding relational theories:

1. I would like to point out that there are at least two very different types of relations that play crucial roles in fundamental physics. Shape dynamics deals principally with symmetric relations, since the separation between two points has nothing to do with their order; X is a distance D from Y if and only if Y is a distance D from X. Spacelike separation in relativity is similar. However, two events may also be causally related, and in this case the relation between them is generally asymmetric because the order matters; X is in the causal past of Y if and only if Y is in the causal future of X. In all but extreme cases, causal relations correspond to timelike separation.

2. Different approaches to fundamental physics place different emphasis on these two types of relations. For example, shape dynamics takes the symmetric relations as fundamental, and causal set theory takes the asymmetric ones as fundamental. The theory of causal dynamical triangulations takes both to be fundamental.

3. My own belief is that there is one fundamental type of relation, but I am not sure that it is strictly symmetric or strictly asymmetric. I think it is "mostly asymmetric," and hence I refer to it as the relation generating the causal order, but one should bear in mind that this is a definition of what causality means and not a hypothesis. The hypothesis I make is that this relation is sufficient to describe both metric and causal structure. If you are interested, you might look at my essay here On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

4. Another possibility is that there is some type of duality in which spacelike relations can be recovered from timelike relations and vice versa. I mention some metric recovery theorems in my essay (not my theorems, you understand) that allow for recovering most of the metric structure from causal relations.

5. You remark that "relativity is almost completely relational." True, but the "almost" is important. Time-travel paradoxes and various other problems arise from the fact that it is not completely relational.

Regarding relationships among time, space, objects, and motion, and category theory.

1. I think you are right on target by suggesting that perhaps any one of these concepts can be given meaning in terms of the others (page 6 of your essay).

2. I agree that category theory (and more generally, graph theory) is a very promising language in which to develop this view.

3. My viewpoint on this is somewhat different from that of Baez. I think that in certain important ways elements (events), relations, objects, and morphisms can all be viewed interchangeably. Viewing morphisms as objects arises in multicategory theory. Viewing elements as objects arises in the theory of categorification. I mention both of these in my essay, but only briefly.

In conclusion, you have touched on a lot of points that I have thought about too, and I think you have done so in a very promising way. I would appreciate any remarks you might have on my submission if you get a chance to read it. Take care,

Ben Dribus

I just read Barbour's paper. It along with his video on FQXi makes reference to similar work you have. I suggested a way to think about this using null rays on his blog site.

Cheers LC

One can look at this according to how one axiomatizes a space. If you have a space in n dimensions one can represent the positive tensor dimension as ||| ...|•ε = 0, where | represents an element such as a vector or spinor and the set |||...| means an exterior product of these. The ε means a Levi-Civita symbol and this is a skew product. This can be seen equivalently as a skew symmetrization of the |||...| in a higher dimensional space. If this is zero, then the space of tensors is symmetric. This system however requires there to be the |||...|•g, where g is a symmetric tensor. This way of thinking is what might be called Penrose-ology. Again this is equivalent to a symmetric trace in a higher dimensional space. The "dimension of these tensors" are n and -n respectively. They correspond to the symmetric and antisymmetric sets of tensors, which have a duality.

This duality between symmetric and skew symmetric elements, or for two tensors products of the sort

{ψ^a, ψ^b} = g^{ab}

[φ^a, φ^b] = ω^{ab}

involves supersymmetry. In the case of spacetime the generators of supersymmetry Q_a and \bar-Q_b construct Lorentz boosts

[Q_a,\bar-Q_b] = iσ^μ_{ab}∂_μ.

The relationship between the symmetry and antisymmetric approaches, say shape dynamics and causal set theory, might then have functors to Fermi-Dirac fields and boson fields, and a system which includes both might then have a graded Lie algebra with Grassmann generators that connect the two.

Cheers LC

Daniel,

I will have to think carefully about what you said and wrote about semantic completeness and observation. One of the weak points in my knowledge that has come up over and over again on this forum is the original ideas of Mach, although it seems that much of this involves covariance/equivalence principles, which I have thought about. Part of my task is just understanding the terminology, since I come mostly from the math side. Take care,

Ben

Lawrence,

Again, thanks for the insight. I have been having a somewhat similar discussion about possible duality/complementarity with Sean Gryb over on my thread. I won't remark further about this particular idea here without Daniel's permission, since it's somewhat tangential to the focus of his essay, but such discussion is always welcome on my thread. Take care,

Ben

Dear Daniel,

I have been thinking a bit more about the last few sections of your paper. I am in the process of trying to learn several new things at once (and also write a dissertation about something completely unrelated!) so you'll have to forgive my delayed response.

First, I appreciate your explanation in the previous post; I think I have a better idea now of how you are using certain terminology. In particular, I realize now that a large part of what you are presenting is your own ideas, so it's not surprising I haven't heard of this view before. Now let me itemize a few remarks.

1. Regarding the concepts "time, space, object, motion," it seems that you want to define each in terms of the others. Now it seems clear that any logical or mathematical system (at least any system satisfying a suitable finiteness assumption) will have either undefined concepts at its lowest level (in terms of which the remaining concepts are defined), or will have redundancy at its lowest level (where the fundamental concepts define each other). It seems that these two possibilities are interchangeable: if you have redundancy, you can eliminate concepts one by one until the redundancy disappears and the remaining concepts are undefined. Conversely, you can define new concepts in terms of the fundamental (undefined) concepts and take these to be "equally fundamental." I suppose this is analogous to finding a basis of a vector space from a spanning set, or augmenting a basis to a larger spanning set that is no longer linearly independent. There are plenty of situations in which a larger redundant set of concepts is useful, so parsimony is not the only consideration here.

2. It seems that "semantic completeness" as you define it requires redundancy, because if every concept can be defined in terms of others, then some of these concepts can be eliminated (at least, if there are a finite number of fundamental concepts).

3. We must be very careful about the use of the word "object," because it has more than one meaning. It has a precise, axiomatic, but very flexible meaning in the context of category theory; as you point out, categorical objects could be Hilbert spaces, or logical propositions, or whatever. It seems to have a vaguer but more specific meaning in the sense of "physical object." When you mention defining time in terms of objects, space, and motion, the objects you are talking about in this case must mean "physical objects," such as "particles" or "fields," and to define "time," they must somehow be indentifiable as "the same object" after undergoing the "change" that defines time. In other words, I don't think a pair of different structures by itself can define time in a Machian sense; rather, it is necessary to be able to identify the "second" structure as being the "result" of "changing" the "first" structure. I use quotation marks to indicate that I am not attempting to be precise at this point! What I am trying to get at is that the concepts of "change" or "motion" require that the "initial and final states" be identified as different states or configurations of the "same object" rather than two totally unrelated structures.

4. I am glad you pointed out the work of Derek Wise. I have not read these notes yet, and they seem very relevant to what we have been discussing.

5. There is much more to discuss, but no time at the present to do so. I see you have an email address on your paper, and I also have one on mine... that way we can keep in touch after the essay contest is over.

Take care,

Ben