Kate Becker wrote: "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite."

Lee Smolin, how can a theoretician reject a DEDUCTIVE theory's implication without even mentioning the postulates (let alone exposing the false one)? Why don't you take part in the discussion? Are you following it at all or, once the FQXi money has gone to you...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, Joao Magueijo

p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Were they asked if special relativity should be taught at universities, Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin would answer: "Of course! We have always taught it and money comes regularly!"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Lee Smolin attacks Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Lee Smolin

pp. 226-228: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate. It turns out that you can, and working this out has been one of the most exciting things I've had the good fortune to participate in during my career. (...) The second postulate of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is universal, appears to be almost contradictory in itself. Why? Consider a single photon, tracked by two observers. Assume that the two observers move with respect to each other. If they measure the speed of that single photon, we would normally expect them to get different answers, because this is the way normal objects behave. If I see a bus pull ahead of me at what looks to me like a speed of 10 kilometers an hour because I am in a car screaming down the highway at 140 kilometers per hour, an observer standing on the side of the road will see the bus moving at 150 km/hour. But if I observe a photon under the same circumstances, special relativity says that the roadside observer will measure the photon to have the same speed that I think it has. So why is this not a contradiction? The key is that we do not measure speed directly. Speed is a ratio: it is a certain distance per a certain time. The central realization of Einstein is that different observers measure a photon to have the same speed, even if they are moving with respect to each other, because they measure space and time differently. Their measurements of time and distance vary from each other in such a way that one speed, that of light, is universal. But if we can do this for one constant, why not for another? Could we play the trick for distance as well? That is, we understand that, generally, observers measure a moving meter stick to be less than a meter long. This will be true for most lengths, but can we arrange things so that when we finally get all the way down to the Planck length, the effect goes away? This means that if a stick is exactly a Planck-length long, all observers will agree on its length, even if it is moving. Could we then have two universal quantities, a speed and a length?"

Lee Smolin, your construal of the theory of relativity as a series of tricks is quite correct but some additional information is needed. You have "changed only the second postulate" but do not give the new formulation. Here is the original one:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Please formulate your new version just as succinctly as Einstein did. Needless to say, it would be quite grotesque if your new version does not change a single word in Einstein's original formulation.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

11 days later

There is nothing absolute or real about time. It is a concept based on a sequence of events involving changes in relative position or condition of observed items according their compliance and resistance to forces acting on them. The measure of the rate of change is any convenient arbitrary standard among the events being observed which appear to be constant, but can there be any guarantee that this has been the case throughout the existence of everything measurable?

2 months later
2 months later

Sorry for disturb this blog , I can not believe somebody altered the content of one of my post. Now I removed that one. I do not know how much it is important to offend my naif ideas , but someone is using its time to do it. I am very sorry for this .

2 months later

Specific to De Broglie (never actually read his paper):

- follow me here please: here, "X" = wavelength because I don't know how to make the wavelength lambda symbol

IF: X=h/p (De Broglie equation) , where X = wavelength, h = Planck constant, p = momentum

THEN: X = h/mv : because p ( momentum ) = mass multiplied by velocity {m = mass, v = velocity )

and, (please confirm my math here )

equivalent equation : m v X = h

equivalent equation: m = h / vX

Then, what I see is that when "v" gets very large, "m" gets very small ! "h" is a constant, and, just for the sake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake) of it lets assume that the wavelength is non-changing here, for our example.

[Although speed of light "c" does equal wavelength multiplied by frequency]

So, at faster rates of travel, mass gets smaller: m = h / vX [as "v" in the denominator gets bigger, "m" gets smaller] with everything else remaining constant.

At "c" , mass disappears altogether (it has turned to Space (MTS & CIG Theory)

Why are we told that mass gets greater toward it traveling at "c" (Einstein) ????

Here, I see it getting smaller? What am I missing?

About the conflct here - does mass get greater (Einstein) or smaller (CIG Theory) at rates approaching "c" ??

CIG says smaller as Matter actually unfolds into it (mass) becoming Space itself. The mass of Dark Matter is that of a Time nature (read Time Equilibrium in CIG Theory), as opposed to units of grams. The mass has turned to Space with an increase in Velocity, as is apparent in the De Broglie equation: m = h / vX

I am trying to learn Schrodinger's equation, and, if you alreday know it, and you would like to jump ahead, please apply CIG Theory to it as well. So far, as I understanding the probabilty wave function, CIG interprets it as being real, with the "electron" smeared out (into it being newly created Space), collapsing only when it slows down (i.e. the black hole "M" version of the MTS equation)

comment here or to lippfamily@earthlink.net

read theory at : www.CIGTheory.com

Thnak you

the author - CIG Theory

3 months later

Rate x Time cannot = Distance in an expanding universe

RxT=D is faulty

The equation is: Could you pick up on CIG theory's concepts as to:

What the true equation for distance is, taking into context CIG Theory.

My math is horrible. My physics worse, however, we go forward.

So, Distance = Rate multiplied by Time (Standard equation)

We now add that new spatial manifestation to this distance as follows:

True Distance = Rate multiplied by Time The % of "c" times the massive quantity in motion, using the atomic mass unit to spatial quantity manifestation in CIG Theory, or, for varying rates of "c", need an exact equation, as my math falls short here.

I quit (bad math).

The result would be the true "Distance" equation and could be used to compare against Red Shift data & predict Red Shift observations, especially anomalies.

Please read CIG in its entirety first.

Note that I don't know how "quickly" a massive quantity turns to a spatial volume.

If instantaneous ( I highly doubt) , then the above notes work as is.

For instance, D = RT function of % "c" x atomic mass unit to spatial manifestation (per CIG) x MASS of unit underway.

Don't forget that for more than one entity, (think bubbles upon bubbles) receding from one location (say EARTH), and each other, we have to add these two (or more) distances together to obtain the accumulated distance( reason for accelerating Universe). Try finding this equation, please.

Please work on the equation.

You will be obtaining the actual and true "Distance Equation".

Use the CUPI quantification from CIG Theory -- www.CIGTheory.com

THX

doug

6 months later

Lee Smolin,

You were given FQXi money to restore the "real and global time" and show what's wrong with relativity:

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

What's happened? FQXi money's gone, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

Pentcho Valev

    Lee Smolin: "The second postulate of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is universal, appears to be almost contradictory in itself. Why? Consider a single photon, tracked by two observers. Assume that the two observers move with respect to each other. If they measure the speed of that single photon, we would normally expect them to get different answers, because this is the way normal objects behave. If I see a bus pull ahead of me at what looks to me like a speed of 10 kilometers an hour because I am in a car screaming down the highway at 140 kilometers per hour, an observer standing on the side of the road will see the bus moving at 150 km/hour. But if I observe a photon under the same circumstances, special relativity says that the roadside observer will measure the photon to have the same speed that I think it has. So why is this not a contradiction? The key is that we do not measure speed directly. Speed is a ratio: it is a certain distance per a certain time. The central realization of Einstein is that different observers measure a photon to have the same speed, even if they are moving with respect to each other, because they measure space and time differently. Their measurements of time and distance vary from each other in such a way that one speed, that of light, is universal."

    But different observers measure the photon to have different frequency, and the frequency is proportional to the speed. So? Isn't it reasonable to assume that, by measuring the frequency, observers indirectly measure the speed? A positive answer was given in my essay:

    Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

    Pentcho Valev

    Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

    Here is the second postulate:

    "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

    The gist is "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" so any non-phony alternative must involve "dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body".

    Pentcho Valev

    8 days later

    William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., Time Dilation: "There is absolutely no argument that time-keeping mechanisms do slow down when moving at high speed, and that in most instances, they obey the time dilation formula of Lorentz and Poincaré. (There are violations, as Jefimenko[10] has pointed out.) The dissident argument here is really more of a metaphysical one. A distinction should be made between Universal absolute invariant time and gravitational effects acting on time-keeping mechanisms such as water clocks, grandfather clocks, digital watches, radioactive decay rates, and cesium clocks (cesium atoms), to name just a few. All sources of oscillation in nature are influenced by a change in gravitational potential. To build a clock, we have no choice but to exploit oscillator sources. Unfortunately we cannot construct an ideal clock [one that cannot be influenced by a change in gravitational potential] even if we use cesium atoms by definition. This was aptly demonstrated by the famous Häfele-Keating experiment[11,12] in which cesium clocks were flown around the world. The atomic clock transported eastward lost 59 ns, while the atomic clock transported westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory standard. All physical devices used for time keeping are subject to error when accelerated, decelerated, or constrained to move linearly through a variation in gravitational potential. The Häfele-Keating experiment is not a failure for relativity theory, but the question should be asked: Is time itself dilated, or are internal processes merely altered by moving through a gravitational field? Metaphysically speaking, we do not consider this to be a distinction without a difference."

    THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF REAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF TIME DILATION, AS OPPOSED TO CLOCK RETARDATION: "Einstein is praised for having made a "leap of faith" beyond the pedestrian reasoning of Lorentz and others, by claiming that when clocks slow down in a relativistic fashion, it is really time itself that is slowing down. But every bit of alleged evidence proves, at most, nothing more than that the clock slows down. Too many physicists subscribe to the belief that there is nothing to time except what can be seen on the face of a clock; but that amounts to the ridiculous statement that a measuring device has been built to measure nothing but itself. This view is an extreme version of operationalism, a very simplistic version of Machian positivism. So the "leap of faith" claiming time dilation remains totally unsupported by facts; mere speculation, not science." -- www.worldnpa.org/site/principals

    Time is not a physical dimention we could travel in.

    Time does not slow down -- "Time Dilation" is not a physical phenomenon.

    Thank you,

    Zbigniew http://www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski

      Zbigniew,

      It is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light postulate (derived in all textbooks) that the clock on the train runs slower than clocks on the ground. Whether you call this time dilation or clock retardation is immaterial. The only reasonable question is: Does the clock on the train really run slower, in accordance with the formula given by special relativity? If your answer is yes, you are 100% Einsteinian. If your answer is no, you are 100% Newtonian.

      Pentcho Valev

      10 days later

      Lee Smolin: "Quantum mechanics was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must always be the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his own theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10 years, as others in the world of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely path away from it."

      Lee Smolin,

      "Within two years of publishing" special relativity Einstein realized the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

      John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

      It is easy to show that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, then, relative to the observer, it varies with the speed of the observer. So you are right - in 1907 Einstein did already know special relativity was wrong.

      Pentcho Valev

        a month later

        Lee Smolin: "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable. That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary. (...) Einstein's theories of relativity make even stronger arguments that time is inessential to a fundamental description of the world, as I'll discuss in chapter 6. Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality. (...) In Part I, I will present the case from science for believing that time is an illusion. In Part II, I will demolish those arguments and show why time must be taken to be real if fundamental physics and cosmology are to overcome the crises they currently face.

        Lee Smolin,

        Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it makes "even stronger arguments" in favour of something that you do not accept, it does so based on some false postulate. Have you identified it in your new book? In a previous book you did expose the false postulate:

        Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

        Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho,

        Interesting to see Smolin is writing a book on the topic. Physics seems to be swirling around a black hole of suppositon, since many of the previous assumptions are coming to naught.

        He seems to argue time is a foundational vector of events. Not sure how different that really is.

        "Time will turn out to be the only aspect of our everyday experience that is fundamental. The fact that it is always some moment in our perception, and that we experience that moment as one of a flow of moments, is not an illusion. It is the best clue we have to fundamental reality."

        Why not there is only the moment. It changes shape, so there is nothing external to it.

        Minor contradiction:

        "Temperature is just the average energy of atoms in random motion, so the laws of thermodynamics that refer to temperature are emergent and approximate."

        "In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is the best theory we have so far of the elementary particles, the properties of an electron, such as its mass, are dynamically determined by the interactions in which it participates. The most basic property a particle can have is its mass, which determines how much force is needed to change its motion. In the Standard Model, all the particles' masses arise from their interactions with other particles and are determined primarily by one -- the Higgs particle. No longer are there absolutely "elementary" particles; everything that behaves like a particle is, to some extent, an emergent consequence of a network of interactions."

        If everything is interconnected, then isn't thermodynamics a manifestation of the "network," from which the properties of the particles are emergent?

        a month later

        The Missing Part of the Twin Paradox

        A train is at rest and a clock on the ground is moving to and fro between two clocks situated at the front and the back end of the train. The speed of the moving clock is constant except for the turn-arounds where the clock suffers sharp acceleration. This is the classical relativistic scenario - relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than the two clocks at rest on the train.

        In a complementary scenario (which is missing in the relativistic literature), the clock on the ground is at rest but the train is moving to and fro so that the clock on the ground formally commutes between the front and the back of the train as before. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than the two clocks situated at the front and the back end of the moving train? What does relativity say?

        A clue:

        Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

        Pentcho Valev

          A clock on the ground is at rest but a train is moving to and fro so that the clock on the ground formally commutes between the front and the back of the train. The speed of the train is constant except for the turn-arounds when clocks on the train suffer sharp acceleration. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than clocks on the the moving train? What does relativity say?

          First of all it should be noted that the acceleration suffered by moving clocks cannot be responsible for time dilation effects:

          Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

          It should also be noted that a clock at the front of the moving train coincides with the travelling twin's clock in the classical twin paradox scenario. Accordingly, relativity predicts that the clock at rest on the ground runs FASTER than the clock at the front of the train.

          On the other hand, relativity predicts that, ALL ALONG, observers on the moving train measure the clock at rest on the ground to run SLOWER than clocks on the train.

          This is called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The underlying postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is false and should be rejected.

          Pentcho Valev

          Pentcho,

          Your scenario is ok but, 'solution' clearly false. There is a far better one that works, resolving all issues and consistent with ALL observation.

          Each clock appears to run faster when it is approaching the detector, because its sequence of emissions is compressed (blue shifted) or 'contracted'

          Each clock also appears to run slower when receding from the detector, because it's emissions are dilated (red shifted).

          All emissions propagate at c locally.

          Please consider carefully as you will find that simple mechanism resolves all issues in physics. Or respond with why you think may NOT resolve them.

          Peter