Real-Time Physics

Horrible doublethink in Einsteiniana:

Accelerations are responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

John Norton: "That inertial observers in relative motion will each judge the others' clocks to run slower is, by now, a quite familiar and readily understandable outcome of relativity theory. It does take a little while to get used to the idea, of course. When you first hear it, it seems strange and even paradoxical. How can each be correct in judging the other's clock to have slowed? What would happen if the two observers meet and compare their clocks? If relativity is right, each would have to read a time earlier than other; and surely that is impossible. Or is it? We now know that these concerns are misplaced. The clocks cannot start out from the same place and then be re-united without one or both accelerating; and those accelerations so interfere with the analysis that no contradiction arises. When either accelerates, they cease to be inertial observers. However an enduring literature has tried to generate some sort of paradox from the effect of relativistic clock slowing. The most famous of the these attempts is associated with a story of two twins. One stays on the earth - the "stay-at home-twin." The stay-at-home twin's motion is inertial throughout. The other travels off rapidly into space, journeys far and fast and then returns home. The traveling twin must accelerate to complete this journey."

Accelerations are not responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

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."

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

Paul,

Ergo; If a detector recedes, the apparent rate of time increases, i.e. 'dilates'.

The 'sample' found by detector APPROACHING a clock then has 'length contracted' waves, so time appears to go faster.

It's not being able to think past the (derived) concept 'frequency' to analyse the real mechanism that has blinded mankind to nature.

Now if everybody stuck to above on their walls and thought about it and it's consequences until it made sense, then science could finally move on again.

An 'inertial frame' is the (relative to a datum) 'state of motion of an 'inertial system' made up of matter. The assignable group 'state of motion' may be like a balloon full of moving gas particles. I've dubbed it a 'virial kinetic entity' (VKE), equivalent to a Hilbert Space, and a 'leaf' in modal logic. The full ontology is the DFM.

QM? ...Yes the detector IS part of the system. Otherwise there would be no detection.

Peter

Peter

"the apparent rate of time increases"

The key word there is "apparent". That is, what is observed, ie what is received, which in sight is light. But this is not physical existence, it is a physical phenomenon which is caused as a consequence of the existence of the existential sequence (which is what people are normally referring to when they speak of physical reality).

Nothing is altering in that existential sequence, or in the physically existent representation of it (aka light). What occurs, occurs. That is, the fact that some light may be subsequently received by a sentient organism is irrelevant. Both the existential sequence, which has no interaction with the recipient observer anyway, and the physically existent representation of it (eg light), occur before they are received. Leaving aside the 'enhancements' that sentient orgainsims invoke in the subsequent processing of what was physically received, which is clearly not part of the physical circumstance, the timing difference is a function of the time taken for the light to travel to observers who are in different spatial relationships with that existence. And if those spatial relationships alter whilst the light is travelling, ie there is differential movement, then there is another optical effect. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with inertial frames, or invoking a constantly altering frame of reference for each stage of the journey that light takes in order to calibrate its speed.

"QM? ...Yes the detector IS part of the system. Otherwise there would be no detection"

This is a specific example of the fallacy I am pointing out above. The detector just causes the cessation of the physically existent representation (eg light) in the form as received. Its existence has already occurred, and to be existent, what occurred was definitive. Neither did that interaction involve the existential sequence, it involved light, which with the evolution of sight has acquired a functional role, ie as an independent representation of reality. That acquired role, and the effecting of it, does not alter its physical existence.

Paul

It seems the official end of Divine Albert's Divine Theory is imminent - hints are seen all over the place:

"The Crazy Drama of Physics (...) Now when a new scientific development comes along, it's as though terms like "light" and "speed" and "time" are characters in a long-running foreign soap opera. They all have complicated backstories, and the multiple costume changes don't help. At first, "time" was just a simple campesino, but then - twist! - it's revealed that "time" and "space," who we thought was a swashbuckling bandito, are the same person, except then - twist! - it turns out that maybe they're twins, and because one of them was in a spaceship for a while during the third season, now the one that stayed behind and inherited the contessa's fortune is older than he is. (...) If you've managed to wrap your mind around that - the idea that the past, present, and future all exist at once and are therefore immutable and hence there are no surprises and also, by the way, logically no free will - welcome to the current episode, in which we posit that - twist! - time does exist. Lee Smolin's 'Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe' claims that now is real, the future hasn't happened yet, and there are genuinely new things under the sun. The contessa and her daughter weren't blackmailing the duke at all, or at least, not with the secret we thought he had. The duke's mad wife was the sane one the whole time."

Needless to say, the transition to the "current episode, in which we posit that - twist! - time does exist" is essentially a transition from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate to the variable speed of light (c'=c+v) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Just in case some Einsteinian needs reassurance:

Gluck - Orfeo ed Euridice - Dance of the Blessed Spirits

Pentcho Valev

Disgusting Doublethink in Einsteiniana

"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."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

71:04 : QUESTION: What you did not talk about was time dilation, the myth of time dilation, I think that needs to be blown as well. What do you think of that? LEE SMOLIN: I disagree. This is an important point. Special relativity may be superseded but it is holding up enormously well under experiment. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia is here... and he and various friends of ours have been trying to transcend special relativity for years and we are keeping knocked back by experiment... and the experiments have shown that special relativity is true to tremendous precision... Do you agree Giovanni? Yea!

Pentcho Valev

The doublethink demonstrated above and the lack of any reaction in the scientific community are unmistakable signs of dead science:

[link:blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/02/04/the-end-of-science-bandwagon-is-getting-crowded/]"The End-of-Science Bandwagon Is Getting Crowded (...) Compare the concerns of Simonton and the Edgeheads to what I wrote 17 years ago in The End of Science. I argued that "given how far science has already come, and given the physical, social and cognitive limits constraining further research, [pure] science is unlikely to make any significant additions to the knowledge it has already generated. There will be no more great revelations in the future comparable to those bestowed upon us by Darwin or Einstein or Watson and Crick." Edgeheads and other pessimists, welcome to the end-of-science bandwagon."[/link]

In 1954 Einstein himself jumped on the end-of-science bandwagon - he had discovered that his theory was wrongly based on the "field concept":

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Formally, Einstein's theory did not start with the advancement of the "field concept" - rather, it started with the advancement of two postulates. Was some of them an offspring of the "field concept"? Clues showing that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate was in fact the mortal sting of the "field concept":

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

Another unmistakable sign of dead science:

The Albert Einstein Institute teaches that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Of all the physicists all over the world not one could think of a reason why this remarkable conclusion of Albert Einstein Institute should be discussed.

Pentcho Valev

In 2001 Jos Uffink, a famous expert in the foundations of thermodynamics, informed the scientific commmunity that the second law of thermodynamics (the version stating that the entropy always increases) is "a red herring". Uffink also quoted Clifford Truesdell's statements that thermodynamics, in its present state, is "a dismal swamp of obscurity" and "a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds":

Jos Uffink: "Snow stands up for the view that exact science is, in its own right, an essential part of civilisation, and should not merely be valued for its technological applications. Anyone who does not know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and is proud of it too, exposes oneself as a Philistine. Snow's plea will strike a chord with every physicist who has ever attended a birthday party. But his call for cultural recognition creates obligations too. Before one can claim that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be clear what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. (...) The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8). (...) Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.... Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand. (...) This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a red herring."

If Uffink is correct, the set of anomalies in thermodynamics was unbearably large by 2001. So, in accordance with Thomas Kuhn's account of scientific change, a revolution in thermodynamics should have taken place in the period 2001-2013. Has anybody seen such a revolution? Has anybody felt even the faintest stir? How many times has Uffink's paper been commented on by excited revolutionaries? Did Uffink himself keep moving in the revolutionary direction?

It seems revolutions in science in Kuhnian sense occur only when a true but dull theory is replaced by a false but exciting one. In other words, a pre-revolutionary situation in science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an unbearably large set of anomalies as Kuhn teaches. Initially the falsehood cures the boredom by producing breathtaking miracles:

John Barrow: "EINSTEIN RESTORED FAITH IN THE UNINTELLIGIBILITY OF SCIENCE. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE WORLD INSIDE OUT."

Eventually the breathtaking "science" comes to a dead end and simply dies. There is no replacement. Thermodynamics is already dead (people don't even remember its miracles), relativity is in a process of dying - almost all of Einsteiniana's priests have already left the sinking ship.

Pentcho Valev

It looks to me like an opportune time and place to mention that Clausius did discover something named entropy. It is the case that physicsts do not know what Clausius discovered. Instead, the word entropy has been transferred to other entities that are not Clausius' discovery. I have produced the work necessary to show what it is that Clausius discovered. Thermodynamic entropy is explained. It is a real property involving heat even though Clausius' definiton relied upon ideal conditions. The solution, even with the ideal conditions, makes clear what is thermodynamic entropy. I will not, of course, be giving that explanation here. My point for mentioning it is to state my position, learned from the solution, that thermodynamic entropy is an arrow of time pointing in one direction toward the future.

James Putnam

Time in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Raymond Tallis, The Guardian, Monday 27 May 2013: "In 2010 Stephen Hawking, in The Grand Design, announced that philosophy was "dead" because it had "not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics". He was not referring to ethics, political theory or aesthetics. He meant metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that aspires to the most general understanding of nature of space and time, the fundamental stuff of the world. If philosophers really wanted to make progress, they should abandon their armchairs and their subtle arguments, wise up to maths and listen to the physicists. This view has significant support among philosophers in the English-speaking world. Bristol philosopher James Ladyman, who argues that metaphysics should be naturalised, and who describes the accusation of "scientism" as "badge of honour", is by no means an isolated case. But there could not be a worse time for philosophers to surrender the baton of metaphysical inquiry to physicists. Fundamental physics is in a metaphysical mess and needs help. The attempt to reconcile its two big theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics, has stalled for nearly 40 years."

Philosophy has nothing to do with this - the problem is purely ethical. All clever scientists know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativisic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

That is, all clever scientists know that the problem has a simple solution - just getting rid of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences. Yet of all clever scientists all over the world not one could think of a reason why the falsehood should be abandoned. 40 years of unsuccessful attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics means 40 years of regular salaries for everybody. Solving the problem means big trouble:

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev

The Augean-Stable Syndrome in Science

Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

This view is shared by almost all theoretical physicists and philosophers of science (most of them sleep well at night). Some even go as far as to predict the death of physics:

Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be re,versed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either."

"Profound revision of fundamental physical principles" implies looking for, finding and, in the end, abandoning some false principle. Is there such activity in physics? Yes there is - campaigns, quite noisy sometimes, start and restart but then never reach their goal (the false principle remains well and kicking):

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."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, 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."

"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."

International team of leading philosophers and physicists who have come together to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time: "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

Special relativity is a deductive theory based on two postulates so it cannot be "the root of all the evil" unless at least one of the postulates is false. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the second (speed-of-light) postulate is false and the speed of photons, like the speed of ordinary projectiles, varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v). Let us assume further that most, if not all, theoretical physicists and philosophers of science know about the falsehood. Is there any chance that things will be fixed, some exit from the blind alley found and, why not, a revolution in Kuhnian sense launched?

In my view, the answer is no. False theories die in the end but Augean stables remain that no Hercules is able to clean up. Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences have become an integral part of the spirit of our civilization. In this sense they are infallible and eternal, and would disappear no sooner than the civilization itself would end.

Pentcho Valev

Buried under the Augean stables' dung accumulated for more than a century, scientists are unable to react to even blatant contradictions and absurdities in Divine Albert's Divine Theory. So Einsteinians can safely teach that the acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. (...) Careful attention to the differing judgments of simultaneity of the two twins shows that there is nothing paradoxical in the twin effect. The brief moment of acceleration of the traveling twin completely alters the traveler's judgments of simultaneity and this alteration is key to seeing how relativity provides a consistent account of the effect. Nevertheless, many still get confused by the twin effect."

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."

A theory harboring such a blatant absurdity is obviously dead but critics trying to show this sooner or later stop their "line of inquiry" as they find themselves in the position of Mr. Praline. In the end the theory proves beautiful and by no means dead:

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

........................

Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's Legacy - Where are the Einsteinians? Lee Smolin: "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."

So where are the Einsteinians? Most of them left the sinking ship:

John Baez: "I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Lee Smolin also left the sinking ship for a while:

"Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"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."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Then Smolin realized Einsteiniana's ship will never fully sink so it is quite profitable to return to it from time to time:

QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

71:04 : QUESTION: What you did not talk about was time dilation, the myth of time dilation, I think that needs to be blown as well. What do you think of that? LEE SMOLIN: I disagree. This is an important point. Special relativity may be superseded but it is holding up enormously well under experiment. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia is here... and he and various friends of ours have been trying to transcend special relativity for years and we are keeping knocked back by experiment... and the experiments have shown that special relativity is true to tremendous precision... Do you agree Giovanni? Yea!

Pentcho Valev

Kuhn's Revolutions : Do They Actually Occur ?

"Kuhn held that the historical process of science is divided into three stages: a "normal" stage, followed by "crisis" and then "revolutionary" stages. The normal stage is characterized by a strong agreement among scientists on what is and is not scientific practice. In this stage, scientists largely agree on what are the questions that need answers. Indeed, only problems that are recognized as potentially having solutions are considered scientific. So it is in the normal stage that we see science progress not toward better questions but better answers. The beginning of this period is usually marked by a solution that serves as an example, a paradigm, for further research. (...) A crisis occurs when an existing theory involves so many unsolved puzzles, or "anomalies," that its explanatory ability becomes questionable. Scientists begin to consider entirely new ways of examining the data, and there is a lack of consensus on which questions are important scientifically. Problems that had previously been left to other, non-scientific fields may now come into view as potentially scientific. Eventually, a new exemplary solution emerges."

By analogy with any living body, the accumulation of anomalies would rather cause the scientific organism to age and die. The following two references describe the superanomalous status of thermodynamics and relativity, a status which, nowadays, bothers nobody:

Jos Uffink, "Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78

It seems revolutions in science in Kuhnian sense occur only when a true but dull theory is replaced by a false but exciting one. In other words, a pre-revolutionary situation in science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an unbearably large set of anomalies as Kuhn teaches. Initially the falsehood cures the boredom by producing breathtaking miracles:

John Barrow: "EINSTEIN RESTORED FAITH IN THE UNINTELLIGIBILITY OF SCIENCE. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE WORLD INSIDE OUT."

Eventually the breathtaking "science" comes to a dead end and simply dies. There is no replacement. Thermodynamics is already dead (people don't even remember its miracles), relativity is in a process of dying - most of the Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship.

How can one prove that dead science is dead? This is almost impossible. Arguments of the type "I know a dead science when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now" simply don't work. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's silly situation:

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! (...) Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

Is there any hope for science? I am really not sure.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Today I was told that there is a Lockman hole, a small widow that allows a not too much disturbed be infrared view out of our milky way. The photo of Dr. Felix James "Jay" Lockman shows a pretty young man. Perhaps I am the only one here who does not know how this window is to be seen in the CMBR.

You know, I feel also ashamed because I was hoping for a while that there might be something like a light-carrying ether. I regret that you seem to refuse taking issue concerning my alternative suggestion. You know, I question Einstein's first postulate while you are denying the second one. To Kuhn Einstein's relativity was a paradigm shift.

I guess, even if Einstein was wrong, and in that you might be correct, some corrections to the traditional physics were indeed necessary.

In particular, it corresponds to my critical common sense as an engineer that there are no strictly rigid bodies of infinite length, no tangible singularities, no signals that propagate faster than light relative to space, no plurality of local times, no travel back in time, no difference in aging just depending on who of two twins is considered in motion, no length contraction, no a priory existing future history, etc. Is there any way of cooperation between us?

Eckard

The Problem with Deductive Science

Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. 94: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

Clearly Uffink does not accept the entropy-always-increases version of the second law of thermodynamics but the justification for non-acceptance is implausible: criticism involving "unargued statements", "bold claims" and "strained attempts" could only be relevant when some inductive science, e.g. the Darwinian theory of evolution, is dealt with. In DEDUCTIVE science there are only two errors that can be criticized:

1. A false premise (assumption)

2. An invalid argument (the conclusion does not follow from the premises)

The problem (with DEDUCTIVE science) is that the identification of the false premise or the invalid argument is devastating - you have a full-blooded theory before and dismal ruins after the identification. The scale of the disaster could be spectacular:

Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Curiously, Uffink did refer to a possibly false premise (assumption) which leads to the entropy-always-increases version of the second law:

Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Are Borrill's helicity eigenvalues the solution to the enigma? I don't think so. I prefer to trust in an Anti-Wheeler thesis: No wheel rotates forever, and I would like you to comment on my last reply in "Faster than light".

Eckard

The Problem with Deductive Science II

In DEDUCTIVE science, a single false premise can ruin everything, including the career and business of high priests. Yet some time ago Einsteiniana's high priests did not know that and used to launch fierce attacks on Einstein's 1905 false light 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."

Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." (...) "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

Nowadays Einsteiniana's priests feel that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate should remain intact but are still unaware that, in DEDUCTIVE science, you cannot have a true premise (the light postulate) and false consequences (the relative time of special relativity). So they make career and money by fiercely attacking the relative time of special relativity while wholeheartedly defending the light postulate:

"Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"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."

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

You reminded us of Smolin's project in 2011. I am not aware of a result, and I was skeptical because Smolin, instead of dealing with basic fallacies, focused on desired solutions solving "the problem of quantum gravity, which is the problem of unifying the physics of the quantum with the physics of spacetime, the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the problem of how the laws of physics, which are observed ... govern our universe".

Look at how my current essay was rated (3.8 and 1.5) while nobody except myself and a provoked comment by Christian Corda criticized it.

Klingman spontaneously wrote:"I agree with you 100%."

Fisher wrote:"I found myself openly gaining deep insights into exiting truths I had never even thought of previously."

Jackson wrote:"Another victory for realism over the fantasies emerging from careless initial assumptions."

Mishra wrote:"Your essay is as much a pleasure to read".

Hai wrote:"there is nothing to blame the teacher's essay."

Ryan wrote:"Thoroughly enjoyed reading it - thanks for a great essay!"

Perez Wrote: "... your well structured and written essay. You raised several interesting issues".

Dickau wrote:"I have admired your ability to argue your points clearly and passionately, for not accepting a half-baked answer as truth".

N wrote: "... you are not siding with Wheeler's 'anthropic view' but maintain your realistic objective point of view."

Rogozhin wrote:"Excellent essay in the spirit of Descartes".

Borrill wrote:"Eckard - excellent description of time and photon propagation."

Tamari wrote: "I ... comment ... on your very interesting endnotes."

I guess, Shannon's (and my) view is indeed the most obvious starting point of an antithesis not just to Einstein's first postulate of special relativity but also to misuse and mutilation of mathematics. Christian Corda did ignore my argument that a singularity has no measure as does also not have any other fictitious physical object, for instance the middle-point of earth. He will perhaps win the contest for what he wrote elsewhere about unitarity.

Eckard