Time is not the problem. by Olaf Dreyer

Dear Dr. Dreyer:

I have just read your very interesting essay; and it seems to me that, since your internal relativity recognizes a "Newtonian"-like background time, it would dispense with many problems of time, because time has a definite direction. Each space-time point would be in exactly one hypersurface of simultaneity and each world line would intersect each hypersurface exactly once (with certain reasonable assumptions).

As you may know, Lorentz was an ether theorist, as was Poincaré. This does not mean that they believed in a "luminiferous" medium, but they did believe in a rest frame, only with respect to which light travels with the same speed, in all directions. You did not say so, in your essay; but, from the description of your work, taking the Lorentz perspective and recognizing a background time, it seems that you are really following the Lorentzian ether theory. (I consider this a good thing; since I too am an ether theorist, in the tradition of Lorentz and Poincaré.)

Given the above, I thought that you might find the following of interest:

As you no doubt understand, better than I, quantum mechanics is often preferable in a finite universe, for reasons of boundary conditions. Well, it has long been known that each finite universe has a rest frame, which means that the Lorentz-Poincaré ether theory is the correct theory, for the flat subspaces of such universes. To my knowledge, the first understand this were Brans and Stewart; however, I believe that the most insightful work was done by Peters [see references below, for both]. I also discuss this, in my essay, which is at, http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Sasaki._TDoT.pdf.

C.H. Brans and D. R. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 8 (6), 1662-1666 (1973), Unaccelerated-Returning-Twin Paradox in Flat Space-Time.

P.C. Peters, Am. J. Phys. 51 (9), 791-795 (1983), Periodic boundary conditions in special

Relativity.

Also, in your essay, you state, "This raises the question whether there exists a Lorentz type version of general relativity that does without this split? Internal relativity [1] is our attempt at constructing such a theory." Given this, you might be interested in work, by a guy in Belgium named Jan (B.) Broekaert (webpage: http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Broekaert/). From his web page:

The development of a scalar-vector gravitation model with Lorentz- Poincaré type interpretation in concordance with General Relativity Theory. This model requires gravitationally modified Lorentz transformations ("GMLT") and enables to give -at present- a Hamiltonian description of particles and photons till 1-PN of GRT. Like standard Lorentz transformations in Special Relativity, the GMLT endorse an underlying non-observable presentist space and time ontology (due to the Poincaré Principle of relativity of movement any preferred frame remains unobservable). While this physical analysis of Relativity Theory conceptually contrasts its usual geometrical analysis, Poincaréan geometric conventionalism should be able to bridge these with one common observable empiry, i.e. the experimentally confirmed one from SRT and GRT.

I am not familiar with this theory, but from his description, I gather that he is trying to reconstruct the predictions of GR, in his scalar-vector theory, so I thought that you might be interested.

Finally, I thought that you might be interested in work on synchronization, done by Reichenbach (Poincaré also did similar work, but Reichenbach's is more formal and organized). Work surrounding his "epsilon" definition of synchronization can be found in:

H. Reichenbach, Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity, [pg. 35, 44-45] (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1969), translated by M. Reichenbach, from Axiomatik der relativistischen Raum-Zeit-Lehre (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1924); The Philosophy Of Space And Time [pg. 126-127, 125-127, 126-127] (Dover, New York, 1957), translated, with omissions, by M. Reichenbach and J. Freund, from Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre (de Gruyter, Berlin, 1928).

If you are really interested, I have photocopied these sections and can send them to you.

I hope that you have found this interesting.

Take care,

Ken.

Dear Olaf,

There are similarities in our approaches, in fact, a reference to your work was removed only on the last cut in trying to get our essay down to 5000 words :-)

You don't mention it, but your approach would seem to account for Novikov's self-consistency conjecture for GR, identifying paradoxes such as Polchinski's as "the consequence of an unphysical idealization: namely that of geometry without matter." Or does this reflect a misunderstanding of your idea?

Also, I'm wondering if your "pre-causal phase," which is responsible for solving the horizon problem, might somehow be relevant for explaining QM non-locality? Or, does this pre-causal phase only exist at high energies?

Great essay, Olaf. I think I've found another worth my vote!

Mark

Hi Olaf,

Great essay. My question is really for both you and Fontini in that you both begin with a pre-geometric base, the rejection of the dualism between geometry and matter and a Lorentzian take on GR (and thus SR). Question one: while you both get out of the problem of time (Wheeler-DeWitt), do you think that the Lorentz interpretation is sufficient to get out of the blockworld (BW)implication of the relativity of simultaneity? That is, do you think the Lorentz interpretation somehow yields a preferred frame at the level of spacetime itself? Of course Wheeler-DeWitt is more radically timeless than the BW of M4, but I'm curious if you are additionally alleging not only to recover GR or M4 from your pre-geometric base but also a preferred frame that negates BW? If so, how does this story go and does the preferred frame map onto the experience of the present moment in some way? Question two: am I right in thinking that at bottom you both have Causality and/or a pre-geometric analogue of a preferred frame? I gather this is the norm, but why isn't this considered cheating? Is it surprising that one recovers SR if one starts with Causality?

Part of the reason I ask these questions is that we also have a pre-geometric base that negates the dualism between geometry and matter but by contrast we begin with a discrete graph theoretic approach {a discrete path integral formalism, though we don't interpret it as path integrals as such} and we recover the entire BW of spacetime. That is, our pre-geometric account isn't dynamical at all (and we assume neither Causality or a preferred frame)and what we recover is the BW. We started with a time-symmetric (acausal and adynamical) interpretation of QM called the relational blockworld and worked backwards to QG so we have a solid story about recovering QM from our pre-geometric base. In any case, I'm hoping you guys will look at our essay (see below) and offer comments as there is much to discuss in our similarities and differences.

Cheers,

Michael

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Stuckey_Stuckey_Silberstein.pdf

I do agree with you about the 'split' between Geometry and real Universe that drives in my opinion to build a fake Universe with computers; 'Superstring theory' is the best example of this virtual world. I am pointing this in my own essay ('Square Wheels or Real Dynamics?').

BUT, contrarily to you I would not say that the Theory does seem to abolish Time. This theory is either abolishing Time OR Space: one can make it say what one want. Due to my French culture, it is more creating a fake conventional Time than abolishing it. I mean that Einstein's theories are grounding a kind of Time-religion.

My statement is therefore that the split is in Quanta Physics as much as in Einstein's theory. The 'Wave idea' in particle's Physics is 'the theory seen as part of reality'. 'Dualism' and paradoxes are coming from this.

(One can notice that even on a theoretical level, 'General Relativity' of Einstein was destroyed by H. Poincaré himself who does explain that there is a split between the conclusion of GR and its postulate.)

I enjoyed your essay very much. One quibble, if geometry reacts to matter that does not necessarily mean it "evolved in the absence of matter". Geometry could have evolved from matter AND react to matter. Think of evolution. The environment affects the genome which then affects the environment.

By geometry do you mean space-time?

Thank-you,

Sandy