dear Avtar and Israel Omar

as mentioned in a previous post I find myself having to catch up on other essays in the competition

your comments establish some connections with issues I particularly care about so I shall look at your essays with particular attention

I am not surprised Israel Omar would see as desireable more details on my thesis for the redundancy of spacetime inferences. It is that part of the paper which I ended up making more compromizes with in order to match the length limit set for the competition.

On the other hand it can be a simple exercise: think of any measurement procedure for "spacetime observables" you might like; analyze it carefully, decomposing it in all of its most primitive/elementary ingredients; then notice the role for some timed particle detections and the role played by spacetime inferences.

The way I found for handling this while satisfying the length limitations for the competition was to offer comments on the two extreme casess: our most rudimentary (but ultra-abundant) acquaintances with spacetime are through our resident devices, some particle detectors, and our most advanced acquaintances with spacetime, the ones of our most powerful microscopes (the LHC and other particle accelerators) also evidently involve inferences based on readouts of some particle detectors

best regards

Giovanni

    Dear Giovanni,

    You are "more than willing to question the truth of Einstein's 1905 postulates" and at the same time your understanding is that "truth" is of interest for professions different from yours? Sounds contradictory. I think "truth" is quite relevant to your profession. Of the two statements:

    A. The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.

    B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

    one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. Unfortunately the false one was chosen as a fundamental postulate in 1905 - its "protective belt" had already been built:

    http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

    "Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

    The protective belt ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") referred to by Banesh Hoffmann:

    http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

    "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Hi Giovanni

    Thanks you for your reply and your comments. I think I will read again your essay to grasp the detail. Anyway, I hope you get a chance to leave some comments in my entry.

    Good luck in the contest

    Best regards

    Israel

    Giovanni,

    I liked your essay, for it makes a point similar to mine in a simple fashion. Your equation for the translation of the Alice coordinate to Bob

    x(3)^μ_B = x(3)^μ_A b^ν{p(3)_ν()p(4)_ν, x(3)^μ}

    is such that the last term looks very similar to a Yangian commutator. A Yangian is a quantum deformation of a universal enveloping operator. In fact I am working on precisely a formula of this type. This is equivalent to the Yang-Baxter relationship so that spacetime relationships have a quantum group structure.

    I did not discuss Yangians in my essay, though they are a part of this overall work. I instead focused on the BCFW recursion relationship. The implication is that locality is an approximation. In the Yangian system there is aduality, where one set of variables given a spacetime relationship or configuration variables is dual to another set which have no explicit reference to spacetime.

    Cheers LC

    dear Pentcho

    perhaps my previous post would have been clearer if I discussed the differences between "experimental facts" and "true postulates" (the former are of interest to me, the latter require a sort of training I never had...)

    in any case I feel this issue of "true postulates" might be taking me far from my essay: my essay is exclusively about experimental facts (with of course no mention of "true postulates"), highlighting how experimental facts presently available provide support for our spacetime inferences and how some scenarios and preliminary results may suggest that at some point we might have to give up the luxury of such spacetime inferences

    best regards

    Giovanni

      dear Lawrence

      I have also posted on the page linked to your essay: there are indeed some connections between our essays, in spite of the differences of approach and goals

      and now that I have studied your essay I can observer that there are closer connections between parts of your essay and some of my works, see e.g.

      http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1206.3805

      http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1107.1724

      http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1101.0931

      best regards

      Giovanni

        I still think you cannot fight spacetime without questioning the truth of Einstein's 1905 postulates, Giovanni:

        http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/

        Vesselin Petkov: "This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity."

        http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf

        John Norton: "When Minkowski (1908) introduced the routine use of spacetime into physics, it seemed that this represented the victory of a particular view of time. Minkowski's spacetime represented all there was: past, present and future, and all at once. Did this finally vindicate an idea whose pedigree traces back to Parmenides in antiquity: time and change are mere illusions? (...) Might there be something special in the nature of the relativistic spacetime that supports the illusory character of change? An ingenious line of analysis suggests there might be."

        If there is "something special in the nature of the relativistic spacetime that supports the illusory character of change", this "something special" could be the false constancy of the speed of light. That is, you may try to admit that Einstein should not have "resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas":

        http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

        "Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        Dear Giovanni,

        This is copied on my page as well.

        I just started reading Relative locality in a quantum spacetime and the pregeometry of _-Minkowski http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3805v1.pd. You seem to be pointing to a similar end. Noncommutative geometry and Hopf algebras are a main tool in the work with Yangians. I will write more when I complete reading your paper.

        Equation 1 is interesting, for it proposes a noncommutative relationship between time and the spatial coordinates. This in my opinion harkens back to an old argument by Bohr. In 1930 there was a famous Solvay conference where Einstein and Bohr sparred over the reality of quantum mechanics. Einstein was convinced of reality and locality and argued staunchly for an incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory could only be made complete if there are some hidden variables that underlay the probabilistic, nonlocal quirky aspects of quantum mechanics. At the 1930 Solvay conference Einstein proposed an interesting thought experiment. Einstein considered a device which consisted of a box with a door in one of its walls controlled by a clock. The box contains radiation, similar to a high-Q cavity in laser optics. The door opens for some brief period of time t, which is known to the experimenter. The loss of one photon with energy E = ħω reduces the mass of the box-clock system by m = E/c^2, which is weighed. Einstein argued that knowledge of t and the change in weight provides an arbitrarily accurate measurement of both energy and time which may violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔEΔt ~ ħ.

        Bohr realized that the weight of the device is made by the displacement of a scale in spacetime. The clock's new position in the gravity field of the Earth, or any other mass, will change the clock rate by gravitational time dilation as measured from some distant point the experimenter is located. The temporal metric term for a spherical gravity field is 1 - 2GM/rc^2, where a displacement by some δr means the change in the metric term is ~ (GM/c^2r^2)δr. Hence the clock's time intervals T is measured to change by a factor

        T --> T sqrt{(1 - 2GM/c^2)δr/r^2} ~ T(1 - GMδr/r^2c^2),

        so the clock appears to tick slower. This changes the time span the clock keeps the door on the box open to release a photon. Assume that the uncertainty in the momentum is given by the Δp ~ ħΔr < TgΔm, where g = GM/r^2. Similarly the uncertainty in time is found as Δ T = (Tg/c^2)δr. From this ΔT > ħ/Δmc^2 is obtained and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ΔTΔE > ħ. This demands a Fourier transformation between position and momentum, as well as time and energy.

        Consider an example with the Schwarzschild metric terms. The metric change is then ~ 1x10^{-12}m^{-1}δr, which for δr = 10^{-3}m is around 10^{-15}. Thus for a open door time interval of 10^{-2}sec, the time uncertainty is around Δ t ~ 10^{-17}sec. The uncertainty in the energy is further ħΔω, where by Fourier reasoning Δω ~ 10^{17}. Hence the Heisenberg uncertainty is ΔEΔt ~ ħ.

        This argument by Bohr is one of those things which I find myself re-reading. This argument by Bohr is in my opinion on of these spectacular brilliant events in physics.

        This holds in some part to the quantum level with gravity, even if we do not fully understand quantum gravity. Consider the clock in Einstein's box as a black hole with mass m. The quantum periodicity of this black hole is given by some multiple of Planck masses. For a black hole of integer number n of Planck masses the time it takes a photon to travel across the event horizon is t ~ Gm/c^3 = nT_p, which are considered as the time intervals of the clock. The uncertainty in time the door to the box remains open is

        ΔT ~ Tg/c(δr - GM/c^2),

        as measured by a distant observer. Similarly the change in the energy is given by E_2/E_1 = sqrt{(1 - 2M/r_1)/(1 - 2M/r_2)}, which gives an energy uncertainty of

        ΔE ~ (ħ/T_1)g/c^2(δr - GM/c^2)^{-1}.

        Consequently the Heisenberg uncertainty principle still holds ΔEΔT ~ ħ. Thus general relativity beyond the Newtonian limit preserves the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is interesting to note in the Newtonian limit this leads to a spread of frequencies Δω ~ sqrt{c^5/Għ}, which is the Planck frequency.

        The uncertainty in the ΔE ~ ħ/Δ t does have a funny situation, where if the energy is Δ E is larger than the Planck mass there is the occurrence of an event horizon. The horizon has a radius R ~ 2GΔE/c^4, which is the uncertainty in the radial position R = Δr associated with the energy fluctuation. Putting this together with the Planckian uncertainty in the Einstein box we then have

        ΔrΔt ~ (2Għ)/c^4 = L^2_{Planck}/c.

        So this argument can be pushed to understand the nature of noncommutative coordinates in quantum gravity.

        Cheers LC

        Dear Giovanni,

        You discuss spacetime in the way entropy is discussed in today's science. That the entropy increases in an isolated system was RIGOROUSLY deduced by Clausius in 1865, from a few premises. Those premises are long forgotten - nobody knows them, nobody cares whether they are true or false. Rather, people just redefine the entropy - e.g. "entropy is disorder" or "entropy is energy dispersion" - and then like or dislike the new definitions.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        Dear Giovanni

        What an essay! Congratulations! It is extremely clear and simple, while the questions you address are certainly very deep and complex. My essay and yours have a lot in common, as I will explain, and there are some points you might find interesting to discuss.

        Like you and many other physicists, I feel the space-time abstraction is not fundamental. I find your arguments for the ''cumbersomeness'' of it whitin the context of QM very interesting. Your proposal of ''detectors'' first is compelling, and resembles a lot the Machian arguments against Newton´s classical mehanics, which I assume you´re aware of.

        For instance, time is an abstraction we have built upon the notion of motion of obejcts. If everything in the universe speeded up, including clocks, the flow of an invisible paramater t seems meaningless; it becomes more easy to see that time may be just a practical abstraction and not a fundamental theoretical building block for physics.

        So look at your example: ''x = vt (1)

        Of the infinitely many ''otential truth'' codified in this equation only two facts are established experimentally: the particle is emitted at Alice at time t = 0 of Alice's clock and the particle is detected at Bob at time t = L=v of Bob's clock''

        You see the space/time abstraction renders more information than a ''minimalist physical description'' would require. But also, we can ask: what is a clock? Shouldn´t we also remember that time is derived concept from motion in order ro provide a ''minimalist description''?

        Since your proposal is a ''detectors first'' type, we should be well aware about what we mean by an instant of time and a position in space. This leads directly to Julian Barbour´s relational physics. In my essay Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else? I have also serached, just like you, for a minimalist description of the universe and speculated about a possible substitute for space-time. I think we can have an awesome discussion.

        Best regards,

        Daniel

        • [deleted]

        Giovanna

        I would agree with your questioning of spacetime as a valid model of physical reality (and indeed with the basis of QM but that is a different story), but on more fundamental grounds. Neither space nor time physically exist!

        Something exists, not space. Space is a way of conceptualising the physical presence of something (ie dimension, size, shape). In effect we are conceiving of a matrix of spatial points and then defining the relative occupancy of any given something being considered. Another way of putting this is that nothing cannot physically exist, only something can.

        Time cannot be an attribute of physical reality, because it (or any sequence thereof) can only occur in one physically existent state at a time. In other words, time (or more precisely timing) is an extrinsic measuring system which differentiates the rate at which physical change occurs (ie from one reality to another).

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia

        Your well-written paper, I think, supports the Leibniz view of space i.e. "Space is determined from the things it contains" and that space-time is a web of relations among things. I wander what will happen if this relation may not be uniquely determined and depends upon the things. If this is the case, the fabric of cosmos arena may consist of various emergent space-time patches of different sizes and properties, like black Holes and tunneling space. Maybe dark matter and dark energy reside in such spaces we do not have access so far (like the previous aforesaid two spaces). In some cases the emergent of a certain space-time patch entails the existence of another, e.g. (i) the elementary particles world entails the existence of the tunneling space, (ii)The grin of Cheshire cat and the feline itself abide obviously in different spaces, but the one space entails the other.

        There are so to speak two intertwined conjugate spaces and maybe we can infer the laws and the properties of one from the other.

        In a picture of the universe like this, what will be the role of the vacuum? And if "we do not have the luxury of referring to some objective space-time structure "as you mentioned in your paper, do we have it for the vacuum?

        Best regards

        Basileios Grispos

        • [deleted]

        I saw Giovanni in this documentary yesterday. He was riding his motorbike :) .

        dear Saibal

        I had not seen the documentary until this evening, since I am at a workshop in Budapest

        I was just told I could see it on youtube, so now I know what you meant

        I see,,,the BBC used a lot of the motorbike footage,,,I can imagine worse things they could have done,,,the director and the crue were really very nice and I am just glad they left out of the documentary some of the stupidest things I said,,,

        and my motorbike allows me to bring us back to my essay, which after all is the topic of this thread: bulky motorbike, safely in the classical regime, space-time inferences very robustly reliable

        cheers

        Giovanni

        dear Daniel

        I have also posted on the page linked to your 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

        • [deleted]

        Giovanni

        Again want to go back to the issue of the divorce of space and time and again to ask you to read my essay.

        Hi Giovanni

        Good to note that space-time is questioned by forward thinking professionals who realise something has to give such that QM and gravity can find a common underlying structure.

        You write: " v=sqrt[(E-U)/m]. 聽Since in quantum tunneling E − U < 0 this recipe for the speed (and therefore the corresponding derivation of the travel time) becomes meaningless."聽

        Why meaningless, trust the mathematics; accept imaginary velocities. This you can do by adopting a hyper-space where each axis is complex.

        Exactly such a complex hyper-space I propose in my essay, your comment to this idea would be interesting.

        Regards

        Anton @ ( 聽../topic/1458 聽)

        I read your arXiv:1206.3805 paper a couple of time. I don't have time to write at length right now. However, this structure seems to be very similar to twisters. In fact I have today been thinking quite a bit about how one could construct T-theory with q-deformations. I will try to write more about the connection with T-theory after I have tried to bend metal on the idea.

        I gave your paper a high score. It deserves it and I think it should be ranked higher on the list than it has been.

        Cheers LC

          • [deleted]

          Giovanni,

          You would change Einstein's 1905 false light postulate only for the sake of your career, right?

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6893/full/418034a.html

          Giovanni Amelino-Camelia: "Galileo-Newton theory was superseded by Einstein's theory of special relativity, but, after a century of success, that too is now being questioned. (...) Special relativity has only one absolute scale: the speed of light is the same for all observers, in all frames of reference; for particles with mass, the speed of light is the maximum attainable velocity. Last year, I proposed that the introduction of a second absolute scale, CHANGING THE POSTULATES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY, would fit the needs of some quantum-gravity approaches and would affect the analysis of cosmic rays."

          Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com