Ripping Apart Einstein

Thomas Ray

"I have pointed out my agreement with Pentcho's point that time travel to past and future are impossible. "

Time travel to the future is exceedingly trivial.

Pentcho Valev

Thomas Howard Ray: "Time travel to the future is exceedingly trivial."

Jumping, within a minute (of one's experienced time), "arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead"? Exceedingly trivial?

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Pentcho Valev

Thomas Ray

"Speed is logically based on time, not vice versa."

By whose logic? By your reasoning:

Time independent of spacetime, implies that speed is independent of space. Speed independent of space has no reference coordinates by which to measure it; all speed is either infinite, or zero.

Relativity, with continuous spacetime, saves us from this existential dilemma. Any arbitrary choice of coordinates assures a time metric, finite and nonzero, such that measurements between endpoints (arbitrary boundary conditions) defines speed in terms of change of coordinates. Because this change is continuous in terms of time, it is also reversible in terms of spacetime.

Thomas Ray

"'... arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead'? Exceedingly trivial?"

Yes.

You travel arbitrarily far into the future every day, just by existing.

[deleted]

Eckard,

'(Unruh-translit.)' was my transliterating the conceptual ontology of Bill Unruh, whom has been quite broadly prolific. And 'wikis' can only be helpful in finding source material among the condensed generalities, I agree.

Briefly, Unruh treats time as compressible, like a refrigeration compressor puts the same amount of heat of one volume into a smaller volume. At a distance nearer the center of gravity, a transit across a unit distance will take as much time as would be required to cross a greater distance further from gravitational center. There is simply more time in the smaller volume of space nearer center.

As an EE I have always expected you to define 'unified field theory' with emphasis on the key word, Field. So in a generalized workplace of a scalar, constant incremental time which is simultaneous to all points, how do you see the energy of Faradays real notion of fields, being unified into any individual discrete finite mass. Why does a finite quantity of energy not all gravitate into an infinitely small space, or dissipate throughout an infinitely large space. It was the mathematicians whom pronounced the task impossible.

I have no problem with a Newtonian workbench, but R4 simply comes apart trying to account for reality that light velocity is an absolute value that is universally constant. So Cosmologically I don't see how the theoretical workbench reference frame can mathematically extend to universal reality. But I also agree that SR and GR are not the best solution, and have served best to raise more questions than answers given. Data points are metaphors, not fields.

The perennial questions about time are: do we move through time like floating on a river, or do we move in space to different times? I say neither. jrc

Jason Wolfe

Time travel is impossible because it produces paradoxes; it's just a bunch of hooey that doesn't have a smidgeon of evidence. There is a million times more evidence for an afterlife, ghosts and grey aliens than there is for time travel. The physics for those things is probably a lot more interesting, and challenging.

Thomas Ray

"The differentiation between material objects and their interactions and images of material objects and their apparent interactions has to be made."

It's trivial to differentiate between how bodies move and interact, and their mirror reflections. Which is why physics only deals with material objects.

Give an example of images interacting independently of their material origin.

Georgina Woodward

Tom,

once again you have failed to comprehend what I have been saying. I am not talking about mirror reflections. If what I have had to say was trivial there may have been some chance that you would have understood it. It is not trivial but very important.

Any experiment involving observation using the sense of sight or sound or a device to be proxy for that visual or auditory system such as a camera is forming images of the objects and observing apparent interactions of those images. We generally do not conduct physics experiments using the sense of touch. If we did then I might agree that we use material objects directly but still filtered through the sensory system, delays limited to speed of transmission from skin to output sensation, a fraction of a second.

The non simultaneity of events means that different observers can see events occur in different orders due to the way in which the sensory data was obtained. That means they may ascribe the chain of cause and effect to be consistent with the order in which they saw the images or heard the biologically generated output sounds. AA window is smashed, alarm sounds, distant dog barks. Takes longer for dog sensory data to arrive than window sensory data.'A' says the dog heard the window break and that is why he is barking.B Dog next to observer barks and then in the distance a window is heard to smash and an alarm sound. Takes longer for window sensory data to arrive than dog bark data.'B' says dog must have heard the intruder before the window was broken and that's why he barked. Constructive and destructive interference is another example. This is an effect that can occur with images and sounds but not their material source objects.

You wrote time travel to the future is exceedingly trivial. It is in your mind Tom because you are not thinking about it in the same way as Pentcho and I. Speaking just for myself, I am not talking about walking along my (EM radiation) world line from a theoretical God's eye view observer's point of view from past to future. I am always within material uni-temporal Now,everything existing at the same and only time, where there is no material future to move into. Tomorrow doe not exist, I don't move into it. The material arrangement that is Now alters and becomes a new uni-temporal Now and only the youngest u-Now exists. The imagined time line of material events is imaginary, it does not materially exist in space to be visited. There is no material future or material past. Former things have passed away recycled into the only existing Now, or have persisted still being part of Now.

JRC_quote "The perennial questions about time are: do we move through time like floating on a river, or do we move in space to different times? I say neither." jrc" End quote.

The universe and we change in our spatial arrangement of atoms and particles and regard observed change as passage of time though it is just changes within space without a time dimension. Do we move in space to different times when we move- no because there is only one time , but we can move to positions in space where we receive different EM data giving different space-time output present experiences. These can show images of a different time to another observer in a different spatial location. Co-ordinate time is different from passage of time. One is to do with the distribution of potential sensory data and the other to the continual change and recycling of the Object universe.Only its youngest iteration having material existence.IMHO, GPW

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

It is very difficult to communicate ideas, but I think what you say is pretty much correct, though I might differ on some details and use different words to describe it.

And I think you are correct that Tom takes a "theoretical God's eye view" of reality.

Re communicating ideas: I too have noticed that John R. Cox's sentences are too often like random gobbledegook. I.e. there has seemingly been no attempt made to clearly communicate ideas.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Georgina Woodward

Thank you Lorraine I wish I had written that last post better too.

I'll try again ,

Any experiment involving observation( using the sense of sight or sound or a device to be proxy for that visual or auditory system such as a camera) is using the output of sensory data collection and processing. That might be emergent sound or images in the case of an organism being the observer or some other output in the case of a device collecting the sensory data. There may be awareness of apparent interactions of those images (which is not the same phenomenon as interaction of material objects). Now think barn pole or bug rivet paradox. It is emergent image realities that are being considered not the material objects that are sources of the electromagnetic input, overcoming the paradoxes.

. Its still a dog's breakfast but I'm trying to convey that it is not true that ".......physics only deals with material objects", as Tom said. Is the electrical brain activity giving awareness of an apparently existing object external to the observer itself a material object? I'd say it is a dynamic state of the matter of the brain rather than a material object. An image on a TV or computer screen likewise is a condition of the screen rather than being itself a material object.

Eckard Blumschein

Georgina, jrc,

Einstein didn't even invent Aaron Bernstein's idea of propagating time. Perhaps, I am a poor advocate of the restriction to just the moment of emission and the moment of arrival without reference to any arbitrarily added moment, no matter whether it is called Christ's birth or God's eye view. However, I see serious consequences.

Bill Unruh's impressive body of theory rests on spacetime, something that I am trying to avoid because it leads to scientific heart attacks.

Jrc, while I never dealt with the question of an unified FIELD theory, I got aware of perhaps benign imperfections that arise if one tries to take too literary some abstract models which I told to my students too. I am guess that for instance some decomposition into into positive and negative frequency is for logical reason an overlooked necessity although negative frequency is of course nonsense if one does not takes the Hamiltonian perspective.

Eckard

Jason Wolfe

There is something special about the proteins of the neurons, the receptors and the transmitting neurons that leads to consciousness. I can't tell if consciousness is caused by these proteins or not. The only thing that neurochemicals and proteins really do is create a very complicated potential energy V(x,y,z,t). But if you physicists think that is sufficient to give birth to consciousness then can you explain why? How do complex potential energies give rise to consciousness?

Georgina Woodward

Jason,

mind-reading-technology-can-reconstruct-faces-from-the-viewers-brain By scanning brain activity.

John Cox

Eckard,

I'll look into Aaron Berstein, thank-you.

'negative frequency...an overlooked necessity' is applicable. I haven't thought of it in terms of frequency, but it would offer a rationale for light velocity limit. Above which an acceleration would diminish faster than it propagates. That could qualify for Wheeler's 'boundary of a boundary is zero' jrc

[deleted]

Georgina,

"You wrote time travel to the future is exceedingly trivial. It is in your mind Tom because you are not thinking about it in the same way as Pentcho and I."

Right. I'm thinking about it from a physics perspective. Particularly, the physics of information.

Physical events are measured as changes of state within a causal framework. The limit of the measurement is called locality; i.e., the ability of causes to effect state change is limited to the speed of light distance between local point of cause and the corresponding local point of effect.

To ensure that measurement results are objective, we prepare the initial state such that initial state S can be differentiated from final state S' in the time interval (t,T); that is, the map t --> T has an arrow that is not dependent on the observer's state. I like the way George Ellis puts it: "' ... life would not be possible without a well-established local arrow of time.' And 'Emergence of genuine complexity is characterised by a reversal of information flow from bottom up to top down.'"

That was a very rich discussion of a couple of years ago, would you agree?

Best,

Tom

John Cox

Tom,

I jumped to the next thread down, 68 posts to thread is my limit.

I like your Ellis quote, apropos.

As to the limit of distance of effect distinct from the time, I (warily) have long conjectured that the reason we don't find measurable gravitational effect in Electromagnetic Radiation is that it physically resolves by diffeomorphisis into the far field as a linear prjoctection with the gravitational field elongated to something like tubular spatial configuration. As I'd mentioned earlier, computational application of my modeling suggests an ontology where the density proportion obtains from an inverse acceleration of 'c' by an exponential rate, and that results in an exponential coeffeciency of 'c' interior to the constant density proportional to mass which would require the translational velocity of effect to abruptly (at zero boundary) assume a relative value of ~2^14 cm/sec as differentiated from the 'c' equivalence parameter of `3^10 cm/sec. (does require a falsification regime) But in conclusion, the 'tubular gravity field might be what prevents photonic pulses from emanating at right angle (at least) due to opposing directional effect in magnetic and electrical fields, which results in wavetrains diverging in a classical spread.

The exponential rate would also apply in elongation of the gravitational field to conform with linear projection, so I have long suspected that what passes for non-locality in lab experimentation, is in reality the linear projection of the gravitational field configuration, at a rate where it will actually extend across a space of a length (physically in the apparatus' rest frame) of ~2^14 centimeters per second per second. That should be doable by micropulse timing with existing long objective detection experimental apparatus used in neutrino researches and such. Yep, I bet it reaches out and touches the detector photomultiplier. You can file this under gobbledygook. jrc

Jason Wolfe

Georgina said, "mind-reading-technology-can-reconstruct-faces-from-the

-viewers-brain By scanning brain activity. "

That's nice. My 60 inch flat screen can also reconstruct faces. But who is watching?

Jason Wolfe

Georgina,

All of the potential energies of the neurons, proteins and biochemicals really have nothing to offer to create consciousness. But they could be very effective at trapping a disembodied consciousness and feeding it information.

Georgina Woodward

Jason,

Neural_basis_of_self, Wikipedia

Neural correlates of self-reflection

Georgina Woodward

Tom,

The clear "arrow of time" locally is due to the very small sensory data transmission time. Therefore the configuration of the emergent observed local present closely but not completely matches the material configuration of the Object universe locally. The material configuration will always be minutely ahead of the emergent present because even locally there is some sensory data transmission delay and delay in travel of electrical signals down nerve fibers or wires and in the case of the biological organism also chemical diffusion of neurotransmitters across synapses.

The arrow of time can be drawn on paper or a computer screen from depicted past to depicted future but there isn't a corresponding material structure spanning time because the material universe is recycled into the youngest iteration and only that configuration exists. (Solves the Grandfather paradox)

Yes George Ellis wrote a very interesting and accessible essay and kindly took the (considerable) time to clearly explain his point of view, in very many responses, without being patronizing or dismissive. Sorry Tom, George is a "better man" than I.

« Previous Page Next Page »