Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Einstein's Rub

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 5:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

What recent discoveries?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 3:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

Einstein sought a set of (mathematical) laws that would allow Maxwell's equations (for electromagnetic wave propagation) to be true for all intertial observers. The speed of light is defined by Maxwell's equations.

In order for Maxwell's field equations to be the same for all inertial observers surely we are forced to abandon the "ether" concept?

Harry.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 3:59:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 3:17:11 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

Einstein sought a set of (mathematical) laws that would allow Maxwell's equations (for electromagnetic wave propagation) to be true for all intertial observers. The speed of light is defined by Maxwell's equations.

In order for Maxwell's field equations to be the same for all inertial observers surely we are forced to abandon the "ether" concept?

Harry.

Yes, the ether was proposed as the medium through with light 'waves' propagated: just as sound waves have air, ocean waves have water, etc. So light, if it's a wave, must have a medium.

Imagine their puzzlement when the Morley experiment failed to measure earth's motion through the ether!

But it turns out that the cosmic background radiation of Big Bang cosmology might provide an answer to finding an absolute frame. Also, the Bell's Theorem experiment, though controversial, provides a good ground to begin discussing the reconsideration of Newton's absolute space & time.

But more to the point, Einstein corrected Newton's concept of relative simultaneity, Newton assumed too readily that clocks in motion would give an accurate reading regardless of its motion. Einstein said, nope, moving clocks run slow by virtue of preserving their equilibrium states (length contraction & time dilation): Lorentz had more to do with the latter point however and so it was Lorentz that made his transformation equations that accounted for a clocks equilibrium states while in motion.

So Lorentzian relativity is more friendly to absolute space and time since it's compatible with it. There's just strange properties we must adopt on a Lorenzian view- but I argue in a paper that they aren't so strange after all.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 4:14:12 AM, Wnope wrote:
Who thinks Einstein got rid of newtonian thought without discoveries of quantum physics?

Good question, I think the best way to answer it is noticing the shift from #2 to #1,

1) Modern Post-Einsteinian, philosophy of time & space is now under the philosophy of science, which is only a reflection of physics as described by Relativity & Quantum theory.

2) Whereas in Newton's time up to Einstein, the philosophy of time and space was under metaphysics.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 4:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 5:25:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

What recent discoveries?

I speak of Bell's theorem in quantum physics & the recent discovery of a possible absolute frame found in the cosmic background radiation in Big Bang cosmology. There are other sources I can dig up if this interests you.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 10:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 4:13:58 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/6/2012 5:25:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

What recent discoveries?

I speak of Bell's theorem in quantum physics & the recent discovery of a possible absolute frame found in the cosmic background radiation in Big Bang cosmology.

I don"t see how Bell's Theorem or the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) speaks to an absolute frame of reference. Bell's Theorem demonstrates that quantum physics can"t be reconciled with any version of classical physics, that no local hidden variables can account for quantum mechanical phenomena, but I don"t see it as relevant to the frame of reference problem. Bell's Theorem proved Einstein was wrong in his resolute commitment to the deterministic model of classical physics, but it doesn"t do anything to reestablish Newton"s absolute frame of reference. Nonlocality certainly raises questions about our normal conceptions of physics, but it doesn"t necessarily imply superluminal signaling even, the only thing we really know that is shared between two distant points instantly is information, information is epistemic and there are no relativistic laws that place any limit on the speed at which information can travel.

The CMB doesn"t either. You could establish a frame of reference with respect to the CMB by using Doppler Effect measurements, but that wouldn't make it an absolute frame of reference. Because the expansion of the universe is roughly symmetrical, any two points in the universe would measure themselves to be at rest with respect to the CMB, that might be considered a "standardized" frame of reference, but it doesn't speak to their relative motion with respect to each other. Einstein"s theory of space and time with respect to the two points moving in relation to each at relativistic speeds remains valid, there will still be relative observation differences in the time and space measurements, and hence there is still no absolute frame of reference.

There are other sources I can dig up if this interests you.

Sure, it's certainly an area of interest to me.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 11:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sidewalker,

The best explanation of the data concerning Bell's Theorem seems to be that relations of absolute simultaneity do exist.

Bohr thought elementary particles don't have intrinsic, determinate properties (momentum and location). Such properties are possessed only in relation to some measuring apparatus.

Einstein thought the sub atomic world is not characterized by indeterminacy and so particles must possess an intrinsic, determinate velocity even before they are measured.

It was thought that if a beam of light were split into two particles traveling in opposite direction, then quantum physics would require that the other particle instantaneously take on a similar value when we measure the velocity of one of the particles. For since no causal influence can travel faster than the speed of light, there is no way in which our measuring one particle could influence the other particle.

(See the 1935 Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment, or EPR experiment)

But in 1964 Bell showed that if Einstein were right, then such an experiment would have testable consequences which disagree with the predictions made by quantum theory. These predictions of quantum physics were fully vindicated after tests were run. In order to explain the results of those tests, one must either postulate faster-than-light causal influences between the particles or hold that the particles are somehow non-causally correlated so that both particles instantaneously take on certain determinate properties.

But in either case, the relativity of simultaneity posited by STR will have to be given up. Bell himself said,

"I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether " a preferred frame of reference " but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant. . . . what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether " that is a perfectly coherent point of view. . . . The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time ... [This] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether."
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 11:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Popper considered the experiments run on Bell's Theorem as the first crucial experiments between Lorentz's and Einstein's interpretations of relativity,

"The reason for this assertion is that the mere existence of an infinite velocity entails that of an absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity . . . would be the system at absolute rest " whether or not this system at absolute rest can be experimentally identified."
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 11:59:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The CMB is at rest with respect to the expanding space of Big Bang cosmology.

See,

(Michael Heller, Zbigniew Klimek, and Konrad Rudnicki, "Observational Foundations for Assumptions in Cosmology," in Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M. S. Longair (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1974), 4. Kanitscheider remarks, "The cosmic background radiation thereby furnishes a reference frame, relative to which it is meaningful to speak of an absolute motion" (Kanitscheider, Kosmologie, 256).

And tests that shown earths motion relative to it,

(G. F. Smoot, M. Y. Gorenstein, and R. A. Muller, "Detection of Anisotropy in the Cosmic Blackbody Radiation," Physical Review Letters 39 (1977): 899.)

Cushing says, "Today ... the aether has reemerged through quantum phenomena!"

(James T. Cushing, "What Measurement Problem?" in Perspectives on Quantum Reality, ed. Rob Clifton, University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science 57 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), 75. So also Popper, Quantum Theory, 30.)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 6:38:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 11:52:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Sidewalker,

The best explanation of the data concerning Bell's Theorem seems to be that relations of absolute simultaneity do exist.

Yeah, what's commonly referred to as nonlocality.

Bohr thought elementary particles don't have intrinsic, determinate properties (momentum and location). Such properties are possessed only in relation to some measuring apparatus.

Right, but Einstein's rub was not that it implied an absolute frame of reference, it was about the implication that reality doesn't exist independently of the act of being observed, he famously said about it, "I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we don't observe it."

Einstein thought the sub atomic world is not characterized by indeterminacy and so particles must possess an intrinsic, determinate velocity even before they are measured.

Yep, that's what I was referring to in regard to his commitment to classical physics, he believe there was a deterministic reality that existed independently of observation.

It was thought that if a beam of light were split into two particles traveling in opposite direction, then quantum physics would require that the other particle instantaneously take on a similar value when we measure the velocity of one of the particles. For since no causal influence can travel faster than the speed of light, there is no way in which our measuring one particle could influence the other particle.

(See the 1935 Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment, or EPR experiment)

But in 1964 Bell showed that if Einstein were right, then such an experiment would have testable consequences which disagree with the predictions made by quantum theory. These predictions of quantum physics were fully vindicated after tests were run. In order to explain the results of those tests, one must either postulate faster-than-light causal influences between the particles or hold that the particles are somehow non-causally correlated so that both particles instantaneously take on certain determinate properties.

I quite aware of Bell's Theorem, the EPR paradox and what Aspect did to experimentally confirm Bell's, I just don't see that it has anything to do with establishing an absolute frame of reference. As I said, it raised questions about classical physics that are insurmountable without radical changes in the way we think, but it's also pretty much accepted that Relativity and Bell's Theorem can "Peacefully Coexist".

But in either case, the relativity of simultaneity posited by STR will have to be given up. Bell himself said,

"I think it's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether " a preferred frame of reference " but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. . . . that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant. . . . what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether " that is a perfectly coherent point of view. . . . The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time ... [This] introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality, and so on. And so it is precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether."

OK, but that is a cheap solution, and it has the problem that it doesn't work out. As I already said, we have to accept that our old fundamental conceptions have to be modified, but we do not have to accept that anything other than information is going faster than the speed of light, so to speak. There is no physical limitation regarding the speed of epistemic information transfer.

The real rub here isn't with an absolute frame of reference, it was the way quantum physics appears to be denying the existence of an objective reality that can be deterministically known. Einstein's rub with it all was that the requisite distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, between mind and world has becoming blurred; it was being shown that there is no independence between the observer and the observed. That has profound implications that dwarf any consideration of an absolute frame of reference, and a cheap solution of believing there is an absolute frame isn't a solution at all.

You've kind of inverted Einstein's rub by making it about the frame. The maximum speed of light is from his Special Theory, and the Special theory is indeed a deterministic theory, if you know all of the frames of reference you can establish the relative motion of everything. It's only a metrological theory, which means it's about what we can measure, it was in the General Theory that Einstein got explicitly ontological to tell us what space, time, matter and energy are. The Special Theory is about measurements and it says space and time are relative, which is to say that measurements depend on the motion of the observer who measures them, hence we can conclude that there can be no absolute frame of reference from which we can measure motion.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 6:55:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bohr, said "I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we don't observe it."

... did you mean to say Bohr?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 6:57:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No you're right, Einstein said,

"I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we don't observe it."
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 7:01:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I also affirm that Einstein's math in Relativity can "peacefully coexist" and I believe that's what you mean. Also, can you clearly define what you mean by "speed of epistemic information transfer"?

...I'm almost tempted to take that to mean telepathy ;-)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 7:23:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Special Theory is about measurements and it says space and time are relative, which is to say that measurements depend on the motion of the observer who measures them, hence we can conclude that there can be no absolute frame of reference from which we can measure motion."

Yes, and therein lies the rub, STR failed to eliminate Newton's metaphysic since STR just presupposed its non-existence. How? By Einsteins presupposition that the light signal from A to B equals that of B back to A. But such a redefinition presupposes that AB aren't absolutely moving in tandem. All of this is done by mere stipulation. No doubt it was Ernst Mach that probably inspired Einstein"s operationalist definitions by his verificationist and positivist mentality. But verificationism collapsed back in the 60's as a failed, overly-restrictive & self refuting epistemology.

I'm not saying Einstein was wrong, I'm saying that we can reasonably be open to a Lorentzian physical interpretation which is in turn open to an absolute space & time.

Moreover, General Relativity where gravity is characterized as a curved 4-D space-time union and not as a force, is admitted (along with Weinberg, Fine and Mctaggart) that there is no scientific side-effect for treating the geometrical approach to gravity as a mere tool.

Whereas a realist understanding of [space-time] distorts reality by replacing a force with geometry, thereby impeding our concept of the universe. For if the theory of gravity is to be unified with quantum theory, then gravity must be viewed as a force (see graviton).

My whole point is that as opposed to a study under metaphysics, modern philosophy of science merely reflects on space and time as described by contemporary Relativity & Quantum theory. But Relativity anyways is upon a crumbling foundation of anti-realism & Verificationism.

I gave above good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame and how there may even be one in the CBM- of course I understand that bit's controversial... but given that such a topic is on the table still, it seems worth reconsidering metaphysical space & time in order to understand reality.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 8:16:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 11:59:16 PM, Apeiron wrote:
The CMB is at rest with respect to the expanding space of Big Bang cosmology.

Yeah, I know, it's because the expansion is pretty much symmetrical, that's why I mentioned it.

See,

(Michael Heller, Zbigniew Klimek, and Konrad Rudnicki, "Observational Foundations for Assumptions in Cosmology," in Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M. S. Longair (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1974), 4. Kanitscheider remarks, "The cosmic background radiation thereby furnishes a reference frame, relative to which it is meaningful to speak of an absolute motion" (Kanitscheider, Kosmologie, 256).

Absolute motion isn't an absolute frame of reference, fact is you can speak to an absolute motion from any frame of reference.

And tests that shown earths motion relative to it,

(G. F. Smoot, M. Y. Gorenstein, and R. A. Muller, "Detection of Anisotropy in the Cosmic Blackbody Radiation," Physical Review Letters 39 (1977): 899.)

Again, I know, the anisotropy is determined by the Doppler effect, it's why I mentioned that.

Cushing says, "Today ... the aether has reemerged through quantum phenomena!"

(James T. Cushing, "What Measurement Problem?" in Perspectives on Quantum Reality, ed. Rob Clifton, University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science 57 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), 75. So also Popper, Quantum Theory, 30.)

I know these things, it's the implications of the work that you are misinterpreting, all of these considerations to not result in an absolute frame of reference. In fact, the reemergence of a concept of aether in the CMB is the same problem that abolished the idea that any frame can be absolute.

The CMB as an absolute frame would have the same problem that the postulated "aether" as an absolute frame had, and that is what directly resulted in Einstein"s developing the Special Theory of Relativity which is what abolished any idea that an absolute frame of reference can exist.

Michelson invented the interferometer to more accurately measure the speed of light specifically to determine the speed of the earth relative to the aether, and in the Michelson Morley experiments it was established that the earth was always stationary with respect to the aether. We knew the earth was moving with respect to the sun so that just couldn"t be and it is what caused science to drop the notion of an absolute frame of reference in the first place. It also resulted in this strange phenomenon that the speed of light was always measured as a constant no matter how you were moving. That made no sense either and it caused a lot of consternation in the physics community until Einstein came along and effectively said, "Look, the measurements are precise so I"m going to accept it as a fact about reality, I'm gonna add that fact to the classical laws of physics, especially as it relates to the laws of the relativity of motion, and then work out the numbers to see what happens". What happened is something had to give up it"s place in the classical framework, and it was the idea of an absolute frame that we had to give up. It was from that thought process and by working through the mathematical implications of it all that Einstein came up with the Special Theory of Relativity, and it included the necessary correlate that there can be no absolute frame of reference.

In the end, we have the same problem with the CMB as an absolute frame as with we had with the aether as an absolute frame, no where you are you would still always be an inertial frame with respect to the CMB. I suppose you could argue that it establishes every location in the inverse as an inertial frame or something like that, but that still doesn"t yield an absolute frame because the measurement of space and time is still a dynamic in reference to objects moving in relation to each other at relativistic speeds. Even in Relativity theory, every frame of reference from which you are measuring can be considered an inertial frame, the problem comes about in the case of observers moving relative to each other, from one inertial frame you see another frame moving, but from the other frame that is moving in relation to you, it is considered the inertial frame and it"s you that is moving.

Consequently, neither frame can be considered absolute, and from different frames the measurements of space and time of the other frame yield different results from the inertial frame you're measuring from. The only thing that is absolute about a CMB frame of reference for motion that tells us that everything everywhere is an inertial frame is that it is absolutely useless. The Special Theory already told us that, and it had no bearing on any specific frame being an absolute frame.

I'm thinking the reason some pretty smart guys are calling the CMB an absolute frame is that from anywhere in the universe you could measure your speed through it, but that doesn't really make in an absolute frame either. The CMB is everywhere, there's no fixed point to measure your speed in relation to it from, all you are doing is equating the universe with an absolute frame, but that doesn't solve anything.

Yeah, we are in the universe, I suppose we could call that an inertial frame of reference in which everything moves too, but the problem of an absolute frame is the problem of things in the universe moving in relationship to each other. An absolute frame is about everyone's measurements of space and time being the same no matter how they are moving, and using the CMB doesn't do that. You can call anything you want an inertial frame, that just isn't relevant to the problem of any specific frame being absolute. It all goes back to the idea that the Special Theory is only metrological, it's all about measurements, and what the Special theory demonstrates is that there can be no absolute frame in which the measurements of space and time are always the same for everybody that is moving relative to each other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 2:37:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 3:59:11 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/6/2012 3:17:11 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

Einstein sought a set of (mathematical) laws that would allow Maxwell's equations (for electromagnetic wave propagation) to be true for all intertial observers. The speed of light is defined by Maxwell's equations.

In order for Maxwell's field equations to be the same for all inertial observers surely we are forced to abandon the "ether" concept?

Harry.

Yes, the ether was proposed as the medium through with light 'waves' propagated: just as sound waves have air, ocean waves have water, etc. So light, if it's a wave, must have a medium.

Imagine their puzzlement when the Morley experiment failed to measure earth's motion through the ether!

But it turns out that the cosmic background radiation of Big Bang cosmology might provide an answer to finding an absolute frame. Also, the Bell's Theorem experiment, though controversial, provides a good ground to begin discussing the reconsideration of Newton's absolute space & time.

But more to the point, Einstein corrected Newton's concept of relative simultaneity, Newton assumed too readily that clocks in motion would give an accurate reading regardless of its motion. Einstein said, nope, moving clocks run slow by virtue of preserving their equilibrium states (length contraction & time dilation): Lorentz had more to do with the latter point however and so it was Lorentz that made his transformation equations that accounted for a clocks equilibrium states while in motion.

So Lorentzian relativity is more friendly to absolute space and time since it's compatible with it. There's just strange properties we must adopt on a Lorenzian view- but I argue in a paper that they aren't so strange after all.

I agree - I recall reading of Einstein's puzzlement over the cause of intertia, he describes a though experiment (in The Meaning Of Relativity if I recall) about two spheres of liquid freely floating in space far from each other and other matter.

One is rotating and hence deformed and he asks simply: "To what do we attribute the deformation?".

Great stuff...

Harry.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 9:28:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2012 7:01:45 AM, Apeiron wrote:
I also affirm that Einstein's math in Relativity can "peacefully coexist" and I believe that's what you mean.

Not just the math, but where it matters, in practice. They both have been experimentally confirmed to apply within their practical domains, but those domains don"t overlap much, and where they do, they are only in conflict in specific interpretations of each one. Quantum physics and Relativity won"t be reconciled until something radical comes along that completely transforms physics, in the meantime, they both work pretty well and rarely bump into each other.

Also, can you clearly define what you mean by "speed of epistemic information transfer"?

...I'm almost tempted to take that to mean telepathy ;-)

I just mean that you don"t absolutely have to interpret Bell"s Theorem in such a way that it requires superluminal travel of a physical signal. All we really know is that something is occurring simultaneously, and it involves information, and there just aren"t any physical laws related to time and distance or movement that necessarily preclude simultaneous information.

It"s not that information travels faster than the speed of light, perhaps "traveling" and "speed" don"t even come into play in the consideration of the simultaneity of information at two distant points. In the end, the explanation of nonlocality need not entail superluminal travel, it could be explained by some kind of holistic nonseparability, or something else, we just don"t know.

What is separated in thought isn"t necessarily separated in reality, and what quantum physics is doing is breaking down the barriers between subject and object, knower and known. I"m just saying that there aren"t any constraining physical laws that apply to information, there may be, and most probably are, completely different epistemic laws that apply to the phenomenon of nonlocality
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 11:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is an interesting new proposed set of inequalities using 4 entangled particles to test non locality versus special relativity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

It will be cool to see the outcome on this one when it can be pulled off.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 11:04:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
Here is an interesting new proposed set of inequalities using 4 entangled particles to test non locality versus special relativity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

It will be cool to see the outcome on this one when it can be pulled off.

Egads, I suppose it will be interesting, but they are talking about an 80-dimensional object casting a shadow in 44 dimensions. I don't think I can even ponder what the implications of that would be no matter what the results are.

When I see things like this I tend to think they are just conjuring with numbers, maybe what they are testing is their abstract mathematics and it has nothing to do with reality. The question then becomes, are they really doing science or is it something else they are doing.

This conjecture is way beyond what the string theorists and M-Theory guys are doing and there are already a lot of physicist in academia who think these string theorists aren't doing physics and they should move these guys over to the mathematics department, and a lot of mathematicians are saying, nope, it isn't mathematics, they're not coming over to our building. I lean towards Wolfgang Pauli's comment, "It isn't even wrong". If it doesn't make predictions and it can't be falsified, is it really science? It's where all the funding is lately, and so it's where all the physics careers are, so I guess they can get thier own building, but what do we call it? If it isn't science, and it isn't mathematics, then what is it exactly?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sidewalker I'm not saying we've proven an absolute frame, only that there's good reason to reconsider one.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 6:52:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:51:06 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Sidewalker I'm not saying we've proven an absolute frame, only that there's good reason to reconsider one.

Understood, what I'd add to this is that an absolute frame will necessarily be on a completely different level than current understanding. The fact is, we cannot reconcile quantum physics and relativity until something emerges that completely transcends both, and it will fundamentally alter our most fundamental conceptions of time and space, even logic and reason. It's already becoming apparent that any approach to quantum gravity is going to require quantized time and space, and once you do that, you have the problem of where and when do these particles exist, if space is a particle then where and what does that particle exist in, what ever the answer is, it will certainly have the characteristic of being absolute, at least from the frame of reference in which you and I are discussing what an absolute frame even is.

I think peaceful coexistence is what we have until something comes along that makes them both fall into the category of "not even wrong", and depending on your POV, either neither theory wins or both do. In the end, I think both will necessarily be shown to be contingent on a deeper reality that we can't even fathom today.

I brought up the distinctions between subject and object, inner and outer reality, that quantum physics is making very fuzzy, because I believe wholeheartedly that whatever it is that emerges, it will eliminate those distinctions. I believe they will be polar opposites, two transactional aspects of one and the same fundamental reality.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:29:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:42:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/8/2012 11:04:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
Here is an interesting new proposed set of inequalities using 4 entangled particles to test non locality versus special relativity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

It will be cool to see the outcome on this one when it can be pulled off.

Egads, I suppose it will be interesting, but they are talking about an 80-dimensional object casting a shadow in 44 dimensions. I don't think I can even ponder what the implications of that would be no matter what the results are.

When I see things like this I tend to think they are just conjuring with numbers, maybe what they are testing is their abstract mathematics and it has nothing to do with reality. The question then becomes, are they really doing science or is it something else they are doing.

This conjecture is way beyond what the string theorists and M-Theory guys are doing and there are already a lot of physicist in academia who think these string theorists aren't doing physics and they should move these guys over to the mathematics department, and a lot of mathematicians are saying, nope, it isn't mathematics, they're not coming over to our building. I lean towards Wolfgang Pauli's comment, "It isn't even wrong". If it doesn't make predictions and it can't be falsified, is it really science? It's where all the funding is lately, and so it's where all the physics careers are, so I guess they can get thier own building, but what do we call it? If it isn't science, and it isn't mathematics, then what is it exactly?

Well, if one wants to test "Hidden Variable" one has to look where such variables could exist. I don't believe this test would technically fall under the realm of string theory. It is just an extension of Bell's Inequalities, not a theory that a bazillion different dimensions exist.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 8:10:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:29:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:42:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/8/2012 11:04:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
Here is an interesting new proposed set of inequalities using 4 entangled particles to test non locality versus special relativity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

It will be cool to see the outcome on this one when it can be pulled off.

Egads, I suppose it will be interesting, but they are talking about an 80-dimensional object casting a shadow in 44 dimensions. I don't think I can even ponder what the implications of that would be no matter what the results are.

When I see things like this I tend to think they are just conjuring with numbers, maybe what they are testing is their abstract mathematics and it has nothing to do with reality. The question then becomes, are they really doing science or is it something else they are doing.

This conjecture is way beyond what the string theorists and M-Theory guys are doing and there are already a lot of physicist in academia who think these string theorists aren't doing physics and they should move these guys over to the mathematics department, and a lot of mathematicians are saying, nope, it isn't mathematics, they're not coming over to our building. I lean towards Wolfgang Pauli's comment, "It isn't even wrong". If it doesn't make predictions and it can't be falsified, is it really science? It's where all the funding is lately, and so it's where all the physics careers are, so I guess they can get their own building, but what do we call it? If it isn't science, and it isn't mathematics, then what is it exactly?


Well, if one wants to test "Hidden Variable" one has to look where such variables could exist. I don't believe this test would technically fall under the realm of string theory. It is just an extension of Bell's Inequalities, not a theory that a bazillion different dimensions exist.

I know, but they're talking about an 88 dimensional object, most string theories are ten dimensions, M-Theory is eleven, 88 is one hell of a lot of damn dimensions. I just meant it goes beyond String and M theories in terms of dimensions, a hidden variable somewhere in 84 additional dimensions is a very well hidden variable.

When you go past four dimensions you're in a realm that isn't falsifiable and doesn't have predictive value, and that's when I start questioning if you can really call it science.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:12:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2012 12:12:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Many people think that Einstein was successful in eliminating Newtonian Absolute space and time. But not only did his special theory of relativity fail to undercut Newton's Metaphysic, but there may be good reasons for reconsidering an absolute frame in light of recent discoveries.

Using absolute space and time how does one explain then the various results when flying an atomic clock in an airplane around the world and the two clocks are off by a greater amount than if they sat right next to each other in the same reference?

Here some data from the Hafele Keating Experiments.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...