Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained

Tom,

I should be focusing on personal responsibilities right now, but am also seeing better what you are wrapping up in the topological package of spherical v. cubical space. It may help Akinbo to recognize what Hamilton apparently had, That 4 equal axes do not have to intersect for three to be mutually perpendicular inside a cube and that as time and space both exist on each of the 4 then motion is that fourth axial choice of direction. Inside R3, all 4 must intersect, and wherein "Ding-Dong the which is dead." jrc

Akinbo,

In Topology the length of an axis goes from 0 to 1, in R3 and R4 the axis of the same lengths intersect making an origin of 0 and going out to o.5 or -.

In a topological sphere the 4 intersect at a mutual scalar value of o.5 and it is only initial choice of direction of which ends are 0. In R3, if the 4th axis is motion, then time exists outside the sphere and you will keep seeking which clock should move slower. In R4, the fourth axis is going to have the same dilemma seeking which direction is motion. In topological space, the 4 axes can define both a cube and a sphere because they can, but don't have to, intersect; where in R3 and R4 they must intersect and limited to light velocity only 3 orthogonal axis can and must intersect with the midpoints of the sides. Topologically; the initial choice of orthogonal direction is analogous to choice of 'right hand rule' of electromagnetic induction or its negative polar vector of 'left hand rule' which the Bell theorem mistakes for a simple polar vector. I really gotta stop dwelling on this but have reached a pleasing step on my learning curve, yet have to concentrate on necessities. Try looking at your world like the spacetime you experience IS 'mostly' flat, but dwell in that topological cube of non-intersecting axes. Your motion doesn't have to intersection with any absolutely defined mutually perpendicular axis. HNY - jrc

Hi Akinbo,

I hope this will be helpful. The observer observers the other's clock either by receipt of light, and so it is seen, or by receipt of a time signal send from the clock whether sent by radio or other kind of EM wave. It will travel to the recipient at the speed of light. It is a category error to assume the output of the signal IS the other's material clock.( It is unconventional to say so but it is self evident to me from considering this matter from the perspective of sensory perception.) Both observers are generating an 'idea' of the other's clock from the received signal and their 'ideas' will have reciprocal delay if they are stationary relative to each other or travelling so that they are not accelerating. Absolute time does not pertain to what is seen. You told me yourself that Newton was well aware of that fact.

Georgina, you couldn't be more wrong. There is nothing in special relativity that requires personal interpretation. Einstein would have found that abhorrent.

The theory " is contained entirely within the postulates."

Tom ,

What Einstein would think about my explanation is of no concern to me. He is dead and so unlikely to be troubled by it. The human observers that I included to keep things simple could be replaced by inorganic detectors that would receive the objective information and could instead output the reciprocally delayed time measurements. I was not faithfully reiterating Einstein's work but explaining how there can be reciprocal slowing of observed time for both observers, which is the issue Akinbo asked about. Just repeating -it is relative- does not help someone to 'get' why it must be so. Why it must be so is not because of the notions of external space-time, "fields of clocks", absence of absolute time but simply as I have explained. A scientific theory shouldn't be a straight jacket that prevents original thought on the subject.

"I was not faithfully reiterating Einstein's work but explaining how there can be reciprocal slowing of observed time for both observers ..."

That's why you got it wrong.

"Just repeating -it is relative- does not help someone to 'get' why it must be so."

Because there is no 'why' to it. That there is no privileged reference frame explains a physical phenomenon reconciled in a mathematical model (Lorentz transformation). Remember what I said about the independence of model and phenomenon?

Tom,

I did not get it wrong.I explained why it is that two observers can both see the other's clock slowed compared to his own. That is what was puzzling Akinbo. You are talking about a particular representation. 'There is no privileged reference frame' is terminology that applies if you are going to use reference frames for the explanation,which comes from thinking about how time is distributed, and that comes from Einstein thinking about clock time co-ordination. The fields of clocks giving different reference frames are not real but an explanatory device for co-ordination of time signals over distance.I am only talking about the real phenomenon of EM signal transmission not the imaginary external distribution of time.

"The fields of clocks giving different reference frames are not real but an explanatory device for co-ordination of time signals over distance."

Georgina, they are absolutely real. Space cannot be measured independently of time.

P.S. Are you saying that once a phenomenon has been 'reconciled in a mathematical model' no one is permitted to say why it happens except by reference to that model?

It's a clock, you don't have good enough eyes to see a clock one second away.

What he said. :-)

Tom,

Space-time is not space. Space-time is constructed from signal receipt, it comes 'into being' as the output of those signals. That is a physical phenomenon that does not have to involve human observers. Space-time is not the EM radiation in space, that only has the potential to become a space-time output. As space-time only comes into being upon receipt of the signals the (field)clocks measuring time in space-time are imaginary.

John, Tom

seeing the clock was optimistic : ) I did talk about radio signals or other EM signal. It could be a TV signal that is seen. Anything else amuse, bemuse or annoy you John?

John,

By the way, I left a reply to Akinbo explaining why there can not be a return to Newtonian time on "New Podcast: Shifty Neutrinos Win Big, a Cosmic Test for Time, Existential Risk, & "Thunderbirds" Meets Quantum Physics". I'm letting you know about that as you were supporting his criticism.

Pentcho, Tom,

The essence of SR is encrypted within what Einstein himself called the seeming contradiction between his two postulates. I prefer seeing SR more obviously and originally anchored within Einstein's silly Poincaré synchronization.

Tom wrote: "an observer in a moving frame of reference is entitled to say that the at-rest observer's clock runs more slowly." If an observer is entitled to say something then he is a person, and as such he may define his own immediate surrounding (A) as moving relative to something (B) at rest. In principle, he may either attribute A to his car and B to the street or the other way round. The question how fast two identical stop clocks at these locations do run can be objectively decided with a joint measurement performed by persons who are not bound to the subjective attribution of rest either to car or street - provided these persons agreed on a reasonable symmetrical one-way synchronization.

I agree with Georgina on that Tom/Einstein made a "category error"-

Two-way synchronization has problems:

- It is asymmetrical while light propagates isotropically.

- I was ad hoc fabricated as to formally justify Lorentz' attempt to rescue the aether hypothesis after Michelson in 1881/1887 didn't confirm a assumed aether; it is therefore not trustworthy.

- It cannot be reasonably applied to any model of how light propagates, no matter whether as a corpuscle or as a wave.

- It led to many so far unresolved paradoxes.

++++

Eckard,

I agree with Tom that "the theory is contained entirely within the postulates". That is, Einstein's 1905 postulates predetermine the conclusions of SR, no matter what Einstein or anybody else has said.

Of course I still insist that one of the postulates is false and the theory should be discarded.

Pentcho Valev

Penthco,

I also agree that the way in which SR works is because of the way in which it is formulated. I thought it would be helpful to mention that there is no problem with reciprocal observed delay as that is what occurs as a mere consequence of non instantaneous signal transmission even without any reference to SR. There is no need to ask which clock is the slow one, they can both be seen to be slower. Reciprocal delay doesn't suddenly become counter-intuitive when put into SR unless one is thinking that what is observed is the clock itself (category error). Perhaps I should have also mentioned that each observer can consider them-self stationary and the other to be moving.A person in a moving car sees the pedestrian whizzing past, the pedestrian sees the person in the car whizzing past. That's also every day experience and not counter-intuitive.

Hi All,

Tom, must you think using only mathematics?

And Georgina, on "...That is what was puzzling Akinbo", not really. The question was posed by one more respected than myself, but mathematical people like Tom either refuse to answer or get the straight forward question muddled up in so many twists and turns. I than Tom for at least volunteering an answer, although painfully as he himself says. Eckard's post contains common sense, which is more superior to mathematical sense and I repost: "...If an observer is entitled to say something then he is a person, and as such he may define his own immediate surrounding (A) as moving relative to something (B) at rest. In principle, he may either attribute A to his car and B to the street or the other way round. The question how fast two identical stop clocks at these locations do run can be objectively decided with a joint measurement performed by persons who are not bound to the subjective attribution of rest either to car or street..."

How can one "relative" clock measure another "relative" clock? Does that make any sense?

Anyway, I recommend Prof. Herbert Dingle's book, specially for Tom and JRC, and for any who have not read it: Science at the Crossroads, you may go straight to pages 7 and 27.

Regards,

Akinbo

Tom,

On your challenge...

"I'll issue you the same challenge as Pentcho. Try explaining refraction without a constant finite speed of light -- then extrapolate that result from Newtonian physics to relativity at the speed of light limit".

The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction. It is change of speed that causes refraction for all waves, sound waves included. Unless, you wish as a disciple want to play Judas, this is what the 'messiah' said and I quote:

"... A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.

Are you going to play the role of Judas Iscariot?

Regards,

Akinbo

*Please don't feel pain when you explain your view. In any case the pains inflicted are reciprocal, frustrating but enjoyable in a sense.