Shannon’s View on Wheeler’s credo by Eckard Blumschein

Eckard

There are no paradoxes if you understand what Einstein actually did, as opposed to what he said he was doing, and everybody (including himself believed he was doing).

The answer to your question is:

-because people do not read what was written. I am just lucky because I am able to read all the players involved on the net, and have no baggage

-because people do not understand how reality must occur, ie one physically existent state at a time

-because of egos, money, jobs, etc

-because I am a nobody, so whilst at best people will engage in the first place, once they get stuck, they then give up thinking that he must be wrong but cannot spot it, as the professors and everybody else obviously knows best.

I will look at these references.

Paul

Eckard

I am not sure I understand you, because obviously one can have as many 'perpectives' (or better phrasing is calibrations with respect to a reference) as are possible. It makes no difference to the reality, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprised it at that time, being calibrated. There is no such thing as 'birds eye or divine'. We are within a closed system, therefore the only way to discern what that constitutes is from within it, and involves comparing 'perspectives', and on the basis of understanding how they were established, extrapolating what occurred (within the confines of the closed system). The rule is to ensure comparability of references, ie converting all to a common denominator.

Paul

Eckard

"Is there a naturally privileged location/perspective in space?"

No. By definition, any judgement is made with respect to some specific reference, and assuming it has been effected properly it is correct wrt that reference. But that is not necessarily reality.

"Is there a natural point of reference?"

Yes, reality, ie what actually occurred. But one needs to correlate specific judgements and reconcile their individual references to find out what that was.

Obviously timing is common, that is the whole point of it. That is why timing devices are, within the realms of practicality, synchronised. In other words, all functioning wrt the same reference (ie a conceptual constant rate of change). 10.25 GMT is in effect meaningless, it is just a point on the scale. In just the same way that whatever point in time is chosen (which in order to isolate a reality would have to be far more definitive) is in effect zero. Which is the same as when one designates an entity as the reference for momentum, and is therefore, in effect, deeming it to be 'at rest'. It is reality which is determining all this, because it occurs in one physically existent state at a time, which means there is a turnover rate of realities as the sequence progresses.

Paul

Eckard

The synchronisation method that Einstein used does not work because it is the wrong conception of how timing works, and it was meant to apply to the receipt of a light based representation of reality, which would have been correct, but it did not, because there was no observation in Einstein as there was nothing to observe with. So the differential in effect was deemed a characteristic of reality itself. Einstein thought it would not be so when there was relative motion because they thought that what causes this motion also causes length alteration.

Leaving aside the nuance of the first postulate which you have, for me anyway, highlighted by quoting the original words, the whole spirit of it is that reality, and hence any law depicting it, do not alter depending on the reference used to calibrate it (forget the superfluous 'no relative motion' caveat). Which is obviously true, it is the calibration which alters as a function of what is used as the reference to effect the calibration.

It has nothing to do with timing devices. They just tell the time as best thy can. Physical existence is a sequence of realities, each one being a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Time is the rate at which that sequence alters.

I have not read that paper yet, as I now set off to renovate my son's flat, and most evenings just fall asleep on return.

Paul

Dear Eckard,

My sincere apologies. I see I've been missing out on a very interesting discussion. Before I read through it and try to join back in, I want to refer back to your post on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT. Since I've fallen out of sequence there, I'm posting this in a new thread.

The only thing that bothers me in what you wrote is the statement that you "consider it fallacious to have different perspectives at a time".

I think you're thinking too much about these people making observations and not enough about what their natural definition of space and time should be. I think we can get to the former easily enough after we deal with the latter--so I just want to ask you: do you think it's unreasonable for Albert to string out a measuring tape along the track and plot a graph of what he perceives as occurring along that axis of "space" through the course of "time"? Or to add a vertical tape measure and make a two-dimensional graph of an object's path through the two spatial dimensions? Or make a full three-dimensional graph?

Do you think it's any less reasonable for Henri to string out measuring tape along the floor and the wall of the train car and do something similar?

The principle of relativity says that they should both be able to do this, and the laws of physics should apply just as well in both of their frames.

Now, the clocks that they have with them in the first phase of the experiment have the same vertical distance between the mirrors, and a single photon bounces up and down. When this happens, the clock displays the number of "ticks", sending photons in all directions (and in these guys' frames of reference they can correct for the amount of time it takes those photons to reach their eyes by travelling through "space", etc.), so the experiment can actually be carried out in theory. But that really doesn't need to happen if you already just accept that their two coordinate systems are reasonable to use, because then you already know what's going to happen, from either perspective.

From Albert's perspective, H's clock moves to the right. The path of the photon in the clock on the train is therefore not vertical, but moves at an angle to the right. By the Pythagorean theorem, it travels a longer distance than the photon in Albert's clock, which just went up or down. Assuming c is a universal constant, this means that the "tick" of Henri's clock, as described by Albert, takes longer (t=d/c) than the "tick" of Albert's clock, as described by Albert.

The paradox is that the whole experiment can be *described* from Henri's perspective, where he just sits at rest and Albert moves gradually along his ruler. From Henri's perspective, the photon in his own clock goes vertically up and down, and it's Albert's that travels to the right. For all the same reasons as before, we conclude that as described in Henri's frame of reference, Albert's clock ticks more slowly than Henri's.

You said before that you "question the necessity to ascribe a different proper time to the observer" (meaning Albert in this example). This is the reason why. Relativistic time dilation is a real effect in the real world, and it's not a trivial problem to reconcile the fact with the ticking of an absolute clock. You also said that to you, "only the motion of the observer re train, or vice versa, is relevant", and not whether the train is actually moving. This was Einstein's way of thinking, and it's why I said before that you were thinking as a pure relativist. And the issue--the reason you and I are not seeing eye to eye, as far as I can tell--is that without defining a true cosmic frame of reference, actual or absolute motion, etc., and considering only relative motion as what matters, it's logically inconsistent to say that there is one absolute time, three-dimensional space is all that exists, time passes and all of reality is the three-dimensional present that exists "now", etc.

Time-dilation has to be admitted from a relativistic perspective, and it has to be reconciled with a global reference frame in order for it all to work. The way of actually allowing that their proper times tick at different rates while admitting an absolute time and the *existence* of a three-dimensional universe, is to define simultaneity as absolute, and therefore as something different from synchronicity. You and Paul are right that Einstein got simultaneity wrong, by defining it from an operationalist point of view. This is the point I keep trying to make. And I keep trying to show exactly how relativity works--and it works beautifully!--when it's understood in this way.

Cheers,

Daryl

Dear Eckard,

I think I see a possible point of confusion that might lead to you objecting to my above post. In your post above on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT which you addressed to Christian Corda and Paul, you wrote "My objection does merely refer to the interpretation that the laws of physics provide the same picture if applied to the different perspectives of two moving relatively to each other inertial observers A and B - AT A TIME".

First of all, it's not "the same picture", but that they apply equally as well from either perspective, as the descriptions from either perspective, as related through continuous coordinate transformations, are consistent with one another.

I think you may be thinking too literally about this "AT A TIME". The measure of time in two different frames of reference is not the same (e.g., as per the above), so there is no consistent way of saying "at the same time" when talking about the descriptions from two different perspectives. Because of this, I think you're arguing that it's only relevant to describe things from one frame of reference or the other.

But the point I think you may be missing when someone says, e.g. "at the same time you can describe things from one perspective or the other", is that what is really meant by that, is it's not just that things can be described in either frame of reference, end point, but that there is a continuous transformation between the two descriptions which allows the same sequences of events to be described either way.

I hope that helps, and if I'm just misunderstanding you, I do apologise.

Daryl

Paul,

You said you find it stunning that anyone ever read past section 1 part 1. The reason is that everything was headed towards positivism. It was a load of positivists who got us to where we are today.

Regarding your answers to Eckard's question, I don't disagree with them, except for the last one. I've now written two essays arguing for the same presentist position as you, and against Einstein's "simultaneity=synchronicity", and trying to explain in detail just how relativity should be more objectively interpreted, and you simply object to everything. I think the closest you've ever come to agreeing with me was above, where you said you thought I'd agree with something you had written, but then proceeded to state your belief that there has to be a difference in our views.

Please let me state once more exactly where Einstein went wrong on the whole simultaneity/synchronicity issue:

A and B stand a distance d apart and B signals A. It takes t=d/c from the time of emission to the time of observation.

Now A is jogging towards B and B signals A when A is precisely d away. It takes t

Sorry, I forgot that the less than symbol doesn't work here:

Now A is jogging towards B and B signals A when A is precisely d away. It takes t less than d/c from the time of emission to the time of observation because light travels at a finite speed and A jogged a little further so the distance the light travelled was less than d when A eventually observed it.

Now A and B lock themselves up in the cabin of a ship and close all the windows. They stand a distance d apart and B signals A. How long is it from the time of emission to the time of the observation?

"Well, dumb-dumb," says Einstein to Newton, "it obviously has to be t=d/c because all that matters is how they describe things in their local frame of reference. I know it seems silly if you know that the ship's actually moving; but what's 'real' motion anyway? And I know the consequences are weird--there's no such thing as Now; time doesn't actually pass; there's no objective distinction between past, present, and future; etc.--but how could it be any different when you can't ever know whether the cabin is really moving or not. And you can't ever know whether the cabin is really moving or not."

Except you *can* know whether the cabin is really moving or not.

And while the theory *can* be used to describe everything that happens from any reference frame, because that's one of the basic principles that's in its design, you can't then turn around and use the fact as an argument that there's no such thing as "actual" motion, time doesn't actually pass, there's no "Now", and reality has to be described as a block universe. Logic doesn't work that way. It's like Ken Wharton wrote in his essay (he was referring to something else, but the argument still applies): it's like putting on rose-tinted glasses in order to justify claiming that the world is actually red.

It's been a hundred years, and hardly anyone will listen to Newton's muffled reply, "But all you have to do is look at the world around you to tell if you're really moving or not. I agree that you can describe everything that happens in a coordinate system in which you're "at rest"; but come on, Albert, open your eyes: the Earth is moving through the Universe at 370 km/s. There *is* an objective definition of motion, and therefore an objective definition of Now.

"Now, to get back to this business in which A and B are holed up in a cabin: if that cabin's actually moving--say along the line from A to B, in that direction--then after B signals A, A closes the distance a bit--i.e., the distance d between B and A at the time of emission, since A moves towards the point of emission and B moves away from it, so they maintain a constant relative distance from each other--so the actual time it takes the signal to get from B to A is t less than d/c. If you've got trouble with this, please refer to the above example where A is jogging towards B. It's the same thing."

I agree with Newton and disagree with Einstein. For these same reasons, I think Einstein's definition of simultaneity is wrong.

Daryl

Daryl

This is not what Einstein said. This is what people translate him as saying. What he meant to say was both correct and obvious (see below in respect of this paper that Eckard is referring to). The irony being that he had no observation, because there was nothing to observe with. So his c is not observational light, there are no frames of reference, etc, etc. His c is just a constant in order to calibrate distance and duration. This is why he then defines SR, in order to provide a circumstance within which the two 1905 postulates reconcile, before going on to GR.

So, yes in practice, the distance AB is irrelevant, because the distance travelled is from source (ie the position B was in at that time) to when the light is received, and A is moving towards it. But, as I said, Einstein did not have any observational light. He was, in effect, just measuring AB as is, when it exists, ie at a point in time. And that can be done two ways. Either one can establish the spatial difference. Or one can express the distance in terms of duration for something to travel it, like light at a constant speed. It cannot actually do this, because AB can only exist at one point in time, it being the spatial difference between two physically existent states.

Paul

Eckard

Re the essay you referred me to.

There is no synchronisation problem, or at least only at a practical level, which is an entirely different matter and not what Einstein was concerned with. Neither do timing devices have to be synchronised by signal exchanges.

His definition of Poincare/Einstein synchronization is wrong. Einstein did not say that clocks are synchronised by this method, in terms of telling the time, which is their function. He was saying that for them to indicate the time of occurrence of an event in any other spatial location, they would have to be synchronised this way. In other words, set out of synchronisation in order to compensate for the duration delay whilst light travels the distance between event and recipient of the light.

Einstein 1905 part 1 section 1:

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A".

His concept of "immediate proximity" is wrong, physically, as there is always a delay, but it is an understandable approximation. When not in whatever constitutes "immediate proximity", ie at B, the light from A will take some time to reach B (as opposed to at A where being in the "immediate proximity" is deemed to result in no time delay). In fact there is a time delay in all circumstances. So looking at the timing device at B will give a reading of time of theevent at A which is 'late', in terms of time of occurrence of that 'distant' event, as opposed to time of receipt of light repreentation thereof.

What he is supposed to be writing about is the receipt of a light representation of reality. But, apart from the incorrect approximation with the 'immediate proximity', he gets this wrong because the last caveat is incorrect. All he needs is the time taken for light to travel AB, under 'perfect conditions'. The 'common time' is only required for B in respect of A, or vice-versa, and it is not a 'common time' but an adjusted time taking into account the duration delay whilst light travels. In other words, discounting the different spatial position so that the reference is the same. And although he writes about clocks synchronising, what he means is that for the timing devices to, in any position, tell the time of the occurrence of an event in another spatial position, then they have to be adjusted to eliminate the time delay whilst light travels. He writes before this paragraph: "substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch" for "time." ". The word stationary, which is used throughout the section is superfluous.

The simple fact is that a reality occurs at a time. In doing so it generates physically existent light based representations of it, which in some cases are received, at a later time, depending on spatial position, and in real circumstances, physical conditions encountered. The timing system is about all devices showing the same time, ie being synchronised, in the proper sense of the word, within practical possibilities. That is the reference is one conceptual constant rate of change.

Paul

Eckard

Re the first postulate. We may have been talking at cross purposes. I am referring to the statement in the introduction, second paragraph. What does he actually write. You are referring to his statement at the start of section 2, part 1 (On the relativity of lengths and times).

Paul

Daryl

"this has to be a hyperbolic transformation"

? surely, it is just a matter(!) of relative spatial positions and timings of receipt of light. One could assume, to make it simpler, that all light travelled in the same physical circumstances.

Paul

Paul, that's not anything Newton said either. I said it.

But about Einstein, you're confusing two things. It's not just the first postulate that leads "him" to say what he says there, but the definition of simultaneity, as he did state it, because saying the time it takes light to cross the distance from A to B is equal to that distance divided by c is equivalent to making that definition of simultaneity.

Daryl

Paul,

It's not actually as complicated as it sounds. It's just another way of saying that the Lorentz transformation takes you from one frame to the other. The point I was really trying to get at was that by tilting the axes in that way, light is described as moving through space in time at the same rate in either direction, in both coordinate systems. But yes, in order to make that rate actually the same constant value in both coordinate systems, the axes do need to be rescaled in this way.

Daryl

Dear Eckard,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. Here are some comments.

You wrote: "Kramers-Kronig relations guarantee that the future does not influence the past. They allow calculating the imaginary part from the real part and vice versa of any complex function that is analytic in the upper half-plane. Analyticity implies the directional aspect of causality and vice versa. Time scale can be shifted without any restriction." This does not work in general relativity and in general in metric theories of gravity. He was Goedel who discovered a solution to the field equations of general relativity, in 1949, which permits the existence of closed timelike curves. You claims in my Essay page that "The current physics follows Einstein, Hilbert, and Wheeler in assuming a block universe without a now that separates the past from the future." Actually, Einstein, who disagreed with the existence of singularities, never avoided the possibility of the existence of such closed timelike curves. Instead, he claimed that "Goedel's solution gives me a shiver running down my spine". It was instead Hawking who labeled the chronology protection conjecture. I suspect this is due to the issue that the non-existence of closed timelike curves is a strong constrain for the singularity theorems.

You wrote: "Wheeler's S-matrix is not just a tool but it already represents his inclination of attributing physical reality to any mathematical model." I disagree. Being unitary, S-matrix simply represents the respect of the rules of quantum mechanics and information preserving in physical evolutions.

You wrote: "We may derive from Maxwell's equations (without convection terms) a speed of radar waves in vacuum that is consistent with just one time common to all locations, see the endnotes. It does not depend on the velocities of emitter and receiver in space. Only a reactive evanescent component near to each antenna moves with the antenna, but it does not propagate." I did not find this point in the endnotes, please, clarify. Also recall that Maxwell's equations are a consequence of Special Relativity.

You wrote: "Any distance d of a location under consideration from a chosen one and also any time span t that has now elapsed since a chosen moment have naturally positive real values. This conflicts with the tenet that there is no common time but different local times." I do not see the conflict if one uses the Lorentz transformations. Please, clarify.

You wrote: "Infinitely long rigid bodies (coordinate systems) [21] could transmit energy and information with any velocity, even with a velocity in excess of c." Actually, rigid bodies do not exist as they violate the Uncertainty Principle. Coordinate systems are merely abstractions that we use to describe phenomena.

You wrote: "Einstein's constancy of c relative to any observer is not convincing as long as it implies different influences of differently moving observer on the same received light." This point does not convince you, I do not see problems and you must recall that it is valid ONLY for inertial observers.

Cheers,

Ch.