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

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.

Daryl

Not so. Expressing a distance in terms of how long it would take light, at its perfect constant speed, to travel that distance is a valid alternative to expressing the distance in terms of difference in spatial locations. Establishing when an event occurred by comparing the timing of different receipts of light from that occurrence, is something else.

His definition of simultaneity was meant to just be a compensation for observational light travelling. In other words, for two timing devices to be in the same observational frame, when they are at different spatial locations, then one has to move the time on one of the devices forward/backwards. Which is obvious. Another way of effecting that is just to look at the time, with all the devices synchronised to the same time, then on the basis of knowing the differential in spatial position, adding/subtracting the relevant duration.

The issue is that Einstein, with the best of intentions, then had no observation. So in effect, this differential was attributed to being a characteristic of existence itself. What he stated is irrelevant, if he did not then do what he stated!

Paul

Daryl

The Lorentz transformation does not take you anywhere, gamma is just the ratio of the transversal to the vertical. At the theoretical level, the way to convert one frame to another is to establish the spatial difference at the time of receipt of light, then deduct/add the duration incurred whilst light travelled that distance, ie one assumes a constancy of light speed. In practice, environmental conditions may affect the various lights.

Paul

Eckard

As I have said before, it is first best if you understand what SR is, according to the man who wrote it. Then any comments you make about Einstein's concept of relativity can be properly focussed on what, in effect, it was.

Why are you only "pretty sure" that the future is different from the past? Obviously it is, it is a different reality, the future not having occurred yet, and the past being a previous reality in the sequence that has ceased to exist. Reality being that physically existent state which exists at any given time (the present). Incidentally, something is either different or not different.

I have seen no evidence that length contraction was fabricated. It was a genuine explanation by Lorentz and FitzGerald for what they thought was happening. And anyway, as I explained to you before, whilst that all needs understanding as such, it is irrelevant to the Einstein conundrum. Because he had no observation, there was nothing to observe with. He created the 'room' for variability by misunderstanding timing. So in effect, he attributed the relativity which occurs in the receipt of light, to the occurrence of existence itself, citing timing devices situated with the entities as the rationalisation. This is obvious when someone tries to explain Einstein. Cox and Forshaw is a very good example. They have light, a light beam clock, but if you are awake as you read it, then you ask, but where is the light that these observers receive? There isn't any. Somehow observers are observers without having anything to observe. Length alteration, as a result of a differential in force (later identified as gravity) incurred, may or may not happen. What this concept did was create a mind set that there was a relativity of some form or other. In 1905 it was irrelevant, explainable as a consequence. The same argument and numbers applied to the relativity of length as they did to duration.

In respect of the part of this post specifically addressing me:

-I do not know if length alteration, ie some physical alteration of matter in one dimension, as a result of a differential in force incurred, occurs. However, it is irrelevant for the rest of the argument. And the correct substitution of the word alteration for contraction is irrelevant. Remember, if it contracts, it must at some stage revert. Indeed, Lorentz, et al, wrote of 'returning to its rest state', but everybody just concentrates on the first part of the process. There was no concept that matter contracted, or indeed expanded, and then just stayed in that state.

-time dilation does not occur, the existential rate of change does not alter. The only thing that does occur in this respect is an optical illusion. If there is relative motion, then the distance is altering between the recipient and the source of light, and hence the delay in each light which conveys the existential sequence will vary (either shorten or lengthen-a Doppler effect) for the recipient. That is, the perceived rate of change (time) will alter, but not the physically existent rate of change.

-I do not understand your v comment.

I await your next post to us. But remember this. A and B represent a discrete definitive physically existent state (ie a reality) at a given time. In terms of spatial position, these can only be compared at the same time. That is the distance AB is a differential in spatial position between two physically existent states at the same time. There can be no distance between something which exists and something else which does not. My underlying point being that they are not A and B, they are only A and B once. If they occur in a different physically existent state then they are different. And as I said above, different is different, not 'just a little bit' or whatever, ie it cannot be A and be different as well. This highlights the fundamentally incorrect way in which we are conceiving reality, by speaking of its (A's and B's) and changes thereto. A consequence of this is in respect of the equation x=vt. Distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, so this physically cannot happen, and it is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity.

Paul

Eckard

I do not understand this post, or even if you have got the example correct. You say the "distance between them steadily grows with velocity v", which means there is relative motion, or they are travelling in different directions?

Forget the clocks, these are irrelevant. And let us assume that the rate of change in reality is the same as that for light (this just makes the explanation simpler but does not interfere with the logic). [Note: you have presumed that physically A and B are identical over time, so the distance AB can always be measured using the same points on A & B, which will not be the case. Also, if there is relative motion, then there is the possibility that the differential in force incurred which is causing this could be causing dimension alteration].

As each reality occurs, which in this example means a degree of change in spatial position, (it cannot be the same reality if something is in a different position), a light based representation of that physically existent state is created. The existential sequence progresses, and the resulting existent lights travel (we are assuming perfect conditions, ie all the lights travel at c). Now, if the distance between A and B remains the same, then the sequence of lights will be received, after the initial delay, at the same rate as they were generated, and as reality altered, ie the perceived (received) rate of change (timing) will be the same as that which is physically occurring. If the distance is ever changing, which could be a function of A and B travelling in different directions, ie their relative momentum is the same but the effect in terms of distance is the same as if they were travelling in the same direction but at different speeds, then the duration between the receipt of each light will change on each occasion as the distance alters, so the perceived rate of change will be different to that which is occurring.

This might be what you are trying to explain, ie the caveat of 'uniform translatory motion' is wrong because it depends on direction of travel. But I am not sure, as the real point of his first postulate is that reality is unaffected by the reference used to calibrate it (albeit he invoked an unnecessary condition). [Incidentally, I have asked you for a translation of the sentence defining the first postulate in the Introduction, having realised that you are quoting the definition as in section 1 part 2 (On the relativity of lengths and times)].

Poincaré starts with an incorrect view as to how timing works, ie not that the real reference is a conceptual constant rate of change, and the ability to synchronise timing devices to this is a practical matter, and not an issue about time. He then goes on to develop his A B example, with light transmissions to enable syncronisation. Einstein realises this is the equivalent of observation, so his A B example was supposed to be about synchronisation of light received. But as he developed his theory he had no observational light, just an example of light which was used as a reference, nobody saw with it, so the relativity in effect was attributed to existence.

Poincaré, 1898, para 4:

"All this is unimportant, one will say; doubtless our instruments of measurement are imperfect, but it suffices that we can conceive a perfect instrument. This ideal can not be reached, but it is enough to have conceived it and so to have put rigor into the definition of the unit of time. The trouble is that there is no rigor in the definition. When we use the pendulum to measure time, what postulate do we implicitly admit? It is that the duration of two identical phenomena is the same; or, if you prefer, that the same causes take the same time to produce the same effects."

Poincaré, 1898, para 13:

"To conclude: We have not a direct intuition of simultaneity, nor of the equality of two durations. If we think we have this intuition, this is an illusion. We replace it by the aid of certain rules which we apply almost always without taking count of them.

But what is the nature of these rules? No general rule, no rigorous rule; a multitude of little rules applicable to each particular case. These rules are not imposed upon us and we might amuse ourselves in inventing others; but they could not be cast aside without greatly complicating the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy. We therefore choose these rules, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we may recapitulate them as follows: "The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."

Poincaré, 1900, page 20:

"It is the case that, in reality, that which we call the principle of relativity of motion has been verified only imperfectly, as shown by the theory of Lorentz. This is due to the compensation of multiple effects, but:...2. For the compensation to work, we must relate the phenomena not to the true time t, but to a certain local time t' defined in the following fashion.

Let us suppose that there are some observers placed at various points, and they

synchronize their clocks using light signals. They attempt to adjust the measured

transmission time of the signals, but they are not aware of their common motion, and

consequently believe that the signals travel equally fast in both directions. They perform observations of crossing signals, one travelling from A to B, followed by another travelling from B to A. The local time t' is the time indicated by the clocks which are so adjusted. If V = 1/√Ko is the speed of light, and v is the speed of the Earth which we suppose is parallel to the x axis, and in the positive direction, then we have: t' = t − v x/V2."

Poincaré, 1900, page 22:

"Suppose T is the duration of the emission: what will the real length be in space of the perturbation?...The real length of the perturbation is L = (V - v')T. Now, what is the apparent length?...the local time corresponding to that is T(1-vv'/V2). At local time t', it is at point x, where x is given by the equations: t ' = t − vx/V2,

x = v'T + V(t - T), from which, neglecting V2: x = [v'T + V(t - T)](1 + v/V)...The apparent length of the perturbation will be, therefore,

L' = Vt' - (x - vt') = (V - v')T(1 +v/V) = L(1 + v/V)."

Poincaré, 1902, para 90:

"1. There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative motion; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is an absolute space to which they can be referred.

2. There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a convention.

3. Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two periods, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in two different places."

Poincaré, 1904, page 6:

"The most ingenious idea is that of local time. Let us imagine two observers, who

wish to regulate their watches by means of optical signals; they exchange signals,

but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful

to cross them. When station B sees the signal from station A, its timepiece should

not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment the signal was sent,

but this hour increased by a constant representing the time of transmission. Let

us suppose, for example, that station A sends it signal at the moment when its

time-piece marks the hour zero, and that station B receives it when its time-piece

marks the hour t. The watches will be set, if the time t is the time of transmission,

and in order to verify it, station B in turn sends a signal at the instant when its

time-piece is at zero; station A must then see it when its time-piece is at t. Then

the watches are regulated."

"And, indeed, they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but under

one condition, namely, that the two stations are stationary. Otherwise, the time

of transmission will not be the same in the two directions, since the station A, for

example, goes to meet the disturbance emanating from B, whereas station B sees

before the disturbance emanating from A. Watches regulated in this way, therefore,

will not mark the true time; they will mark what might be called the local time,

so that one will gain on the other. It matters little, since we have no means of

perceiving it. All the phenomena which take place at A, for example, will be

behind time, but all just the same amount, and the observer will not notice it since

his watch is also behind time; thus, in accordance with the principle of relativity

he will have no means of ascertaining whether he is at rest or in absolute motion."

Dear Eckard

Just to let you know that I have read your well structured and written essay. You raised several interesting issues such as those mentioned above by Edwin. My major motivation in reading your essay was to verify your claim that you have an alternative explanation to the MMX. I read also the endnotes. There I could find some of the comments that you already posted in my entry. As I mentioned in my entry, Lorentz' contraction is not an artifice but it's well justified if one recognizes that bodies are not rigid entities but deform under the action of a force.

You:The velocity of light c equals to the distance d between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight t: c=d/t.

Here, of course, we have to determine the time at the emission and receiving points. In doing so, this will inevitably lead us to the problem of clock synchronization (that you mention in endnote 4), which from my point of view is a dead end given the circular reasoning that emerges when we try to synchronize a clock by determining the one-way speed of light which in turn requires a clock synchronization procedure. The synchronization by slow motion has been extensively studied in the literature and I would not like to discuss it here. I remember that we have already discussed at length this topic.

With respect to endnote 1, I couldn't get what you really mean. It seems that you are suggesting absolute time and denying local times. You suggest negative values for t, which I don't get the physical meaning of negative time. Could you comment on this part please.

Best Regards

Israel

Eckard

The fault is in representing both time and spatial position in the same way. And then if you use a triangle, one gets gamma. There is only x (ie space), which occurs in one form at a time. t is the rate at which it alters form and is therefore a different spatial reality. Solving any particular event is a matter of relating the time of each light received to distance travelled (bearing in mind other environmental factors), not the Lorentz transformation.

Obviously time as an all pervading now exists, reality is the entirety of all physically existent states at a given time. Reality does not exist over time. There is no duration in any given reality. That is why one cannot, from a proper physical perspective, keep on talking about A and B and the distance AB as if it all exists at the same time. There is one physically existent form of A and B, and hence a spatial difference AB at a point in time, ie in a reality. At the next point in time there may well have been alteration. A point in time being the equivalent of whatever alters the fastest in existence, because with that level of differentiation one will identify all alterations (ie realities).

Paul

Eckard

"A and B are merely assumed to increase their distance. It did not matter if they possibly traveled in the same direction. Only their relative motion matters"

No, it is the distance which matters. If the distance is altering then the rate at which successive lights are received alters, and hence the perceived rate of change varies from the actual rate of change. This can be an outcome of both travelling at the same constant speed, in straight lines, but in different directions, or they are travelling at different speeds in the same direction, or any combination thereof. Put the other way round, the actual and perceived rate of change only remains the same if both are travelling at the same speed in the same direction, ie despite movement the distance remains constant over time, so the delay (duration) whilst light travels remains constant. So the frequency of receipt remains constant and the same as reality. Indeed, both could accelerate/decelerate, so long as they do that simultaneously. Einstein's 'hangup' with inertia was because of his concern about supposed length alteration at different speeds. He was not thinking of actual/perceived rate of change effects.

Re the Poincaré quote you picked up on. The point here is that he is talking about getting timing devices synchronised with a specific event, given that they are in spatially different locations. In other words, eliminating the effect of the spatial difference. So a timing device has to be set backwards if it is to tell the time of occurrence of a 'distant' event, in order to compensate for the duration incurred whilst the signal travels from that event. This is not how timing works. All timing devices are set to the same point in time and alter at the same rate. So they provide a common reference. Then, obviously, determining when an event occurred depends on calibrating distances and times of receipt of light. There was only one event, it cannot occur at different times. The two points have to be stationary, ie no alteration in distance over time, because of the way he is going about 'synchronising' these devices. Any given event (reality) occurred at a time. Any given other event may or may not have occurred at that same time. That's it, the occurrence of reality has nothing whatsoever to do with observation (ie the receipt of light).

Einstein picked this up and was meant to be applying it to observation, ie the signal becomes observational light. But he failed, because he had no observational light.

Re you translation, I seem to be confusing you. In the Introduction, the postulates are defined (as of second sentence second paragraph). The 1923 translation reads:

"They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely..." What did he actually write?

Paul

Israel

If I may jump in. There is no synchronisation problem, neither do timing devices have to be synchronised using light. The whole point of the timing system is that all the devices are 'telling' the same time, ie the reference is a conceptual constant rate of change. The devices themselves are irrelevant, just a means to an end. There is, obviously, a practical problem with getting all devices 'telling' the same time and maintaining it, but that is not what was being considered.

Timing is not time. The consideration was about occurrence (reality). Now, any given reality only occurs at a specific time, not at different times. There is no such thing as 'local time'. It is the timing of the receipt of lights which were generated as a result of that occurrence, which represent that reality which alter, mainly dependent on spatial position.

Paul