CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008)
[back]
TOPIC:
Block time: Why many physicists still don't accept it? by Hrvoje Nikolic
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Sep. 24, 2008 @ 13:06 GMT
Essay AbstractThe concept of time as defined in physics is the most naturally interpreted as a block time. According to this interpretation, time is like any other parameter in physics, without any intrinsic flow and without any fundamental difference between past and future. Yet, such a view of time is in a sharp contrast with our intuitive subjective experience of time. Where this discrepancy comes from? I argue that this discrepancy is an artefact of the linguistic inconvenience that we use a single word "time" to describe two very different things, one described by physics, the other being related to consciousness. To clearly distinguish between them, I refer the former to as pime, abbreviating the expression "physical time" or "parameter time". As the phenomenon of consciousness is not truly understood by our current understanding of physics, current physics has little to say about time. Physics is only about pime, which is a block pime without a flow and without a fundamental difference between past and future. The relation between pime and time remains a challenge for the future research as a part of the hard problem of the relation between matter and mind.
Author BioHrvoje Nikolic, born in 1970 in Zagreb, Croatia, is a theoretical physicist working at the Theoretical Physics Division of Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia. His research interests cover various foundational aspects of theoretical physics, including foundations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, cosmology, particle physics, quantum field theory and string theory.
Download Essay PDF File
Dr. E wrote on Sep. 24, 2008 @ 19:46 GMT
Hello Hrvoje,
Thanks for the great paper which I very much enjoyed reading. I basically agree with your conclusion, where you write:
"The physical measure of time, represented by a numerical parameter t and referred to as pime, is not the same thing as time itself. While time is a subjectively experienced flow, pime, as a numerical parameter, does not have a flow. Instead, pime...
view entire post
Hello Hrvoje,
Thanks for the great paper which I very much enjoyed reading. I basically agree with your conclusion, where you write:
"The physical measure of time, represented by a numerical parameter t and referred to as pime, is not the same thing as time itself. While time is a subjectively experienced flow, pime, as a numerical parameter, does not have a flow. Instead, pime simply is, just like space, which corresponds to the block-pime picture of the universe. The origin of time is not well understood in physical terms, but the separation of the intuitive concept of time from the physical concept of pime avoids discrepancies between intuition and formal knowledge in physics."
But you also say that free will is "only an illusion."
My paper, which I think you will enjoy, shows that both your "pime" and time both naturally emerge from a simple postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions that is represented by a simple equation dx4/dt=ic. This simple postulate unfreezes time and grants us free will while also accounting for entropy, time's arrows, action-at-a-distance, entanglement, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality and inherent probability. The paper, which presents a novel physical model underlying various phenomena in QM, SR, GR, and Stat Mech, can be seen here: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 (Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken )
In your paper, you write, "However, the situation in relativistic physics is entirely different. There, time enters equations in a manner completely identical to that of space (up to an opposite sign in the metric tensor)."
Well, then time doesn't really enter equations "in a manner completely identical to that of space."
If one looks at Einstein's 1912 paper, one can see that he did not equate time and the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. So one would have to conclude that as t progressed, x4 must progress. And, naturally,
dx4/dt = ic
Now some might say that this is a tautological definition of time, but then so are most definitions of time, which rely on the propagation of energy or light, whose velocity is measured relative to time, which fundamentally rests upon the propagation of energy. So it is that I propose dx4/dt = ic as a more fundamental invariance than c, the constant velocity of light. The velocity of light is both measured to be constant for all inertial observers, and it is independent of the velocity of the source, *because* dx4/dt = ic. All of relativity is derived from this simple postulate that a fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, as is the invariance of c.
An added benefit of this theory is a *physical* model for QM's nonlocality and entanglement, entropy, and Huygens' principle which underlies so many natural phenonema. And too it liberates us from the block universe and grants us the free will that quantum mechanics' has always suggested.
Both your "pime" and your "time" in your paper may be accounted for with this theory. The block universe is an artifact of certain interpretations of relativity, as physicists glossed over the fact that x4 or "ict" is very different from the three spatial dimensions, x1, x2, x3. But Einstein and Minkowski had it right there in Einstein's 1912 manuscript: x4 = ict. Ergo, if time moves, so must x4. My paper discusses this in far more detail.
Yes--this block time paradox/problem was swept under the rug on many levels, as well as the EPR paradox, and it is great that fqxi allows a forum to discuss such curious phenomena of our physical reality. MDT provides a physical model liberating us from Godel's block universe while also accounting for the "spooky" action at a distance in the EPR Paradox.
You would enjoy: A World Without Time, by Palle Yourgrau
"For Godel, if there is time travel, there isn't time. The goal of the great logician was not to make room in physics for one's favorite episode of Star Trek, but rather to demonstrate that if one follows the logic of relativity further even than its father was willing to venture, the results will not just illuminate but eliminate the
reality of time." -A World Without Time, Palle Yourgrau
MDT posits that time travel into the past is not possible, as the past does not physically exist--an observation in line with all empirical observations. MDT chooses Godel, Einstein, and Minkowski over Star Trek.
Well, thanks again for the paper!
view post as summary
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Sep. 25, 2008 @ 08:19 GMT
Hi Dr. E,
Thank you for your interest in my paper and your comments.
I have a technical question concerning your approach. In your equation
dx4/dt=ic
how quantities dx4, dt, and c transform under Lorentz transformations? Or more generally, how they transform under general coordinate transformations? It seems to me that you tacitly assume that dt and c transform as scalars, but if I am right then it is not consistent with the fact that dx4 transform as a component of a vector. If, on the other hand, dt also transforms as a component of a vector, then what are the other components of that vector?
In other words, it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this.
Dr. E wrote on Sep. 25, 2008 @ 16:17 GMT
Hello Hrvoje--thanks for the response,
c is the velocity of light, which is constant in all frames.
x4 is the fourth dimension in Einstein's and Minkowski's spacetime (x1, x2, x3, x4).
i is the imaginary number.
And t is time.
You write "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."
dx4/dt =...
view entire post
Hello Hrvoje--thanks for the response,
c is the velocity of light, which is constant in all frames.
x4 is the fourth dimension in Einstein's and Minkowski's spacetime (x1, x2, x3, x4).
i is the imaginary number.
And t is time.
You write "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."
dx4/dt = ic is the source of relativistic covariance, as well as relativistic mechanics, entanglement, entropy, and time's arrows in all realms. All of relativity, and thus its implicit covariance, is derived from dx4/dt = ic in my paper, which also postulates that time and quantum mechanics' nonlocality are fathered by a fourth expanding dimension:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238
One of the novel features of Moving Dimensions Theory is that it postulates that the fourth dimension is moving, or expanding, independent of the three spatial dimensions.
The Lorentz Tranformation, relativistic covariance, and all of relativity, can be derived from a simple postulate and its equation: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.
In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einsetein supposes a four dimensional universe (x1, x2, x3, x4), and then, at one point, he states x4 = ict. He doesn't quite provide a deeper motivation for this, other than the fact that it works! MDT provides a deeper, more fundamental motivation. Einstein's 1912 treatment of relativity is based upon Minkowski's 4D model for spacetime (which he originally saw as unnecessary/unwieldy mathematics), and Moving Dimensions Theory agrees entirely with Einstein's relativity, the Lorentz Transformation, Minkowski's treatment, and relativistic covariance. All that MDT notes is that if one writes x4 = ict, then as t progresses, so must x4 progress. MDT presents a new invariance, from which the two postualtes of relativity emerge--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions: dx4/dt = ic.
From this one gets all of relativity, as well as a *physical* model for quantum mechanics' nonlocality and its probabilistic nature, as a fourth expanding dimension distributes locality. And too, MDT provides a *physical* model for entropy, time's arrows and assymetries, and time itself, while liberating us from a block universe, unfreezing time, and granting us free will. We lose the prospect of time travel into the distant past, but this is no big deal, as backwards time travel does not appear to be a part of our reality, nor of sensible philosophies, but only a part of Star Trek, which will still be fun to watch.
dx4/dt=ic acknowledges that change and movement are fundamentally woven into the fabric of spacetime. The fourth dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions--it is expanding at the rate of c. This sets the invariance of c for all inertial observers while also making the velocity of light independent of the source, and explaining the nonlocal, wave-like character of light observed in the double-slit experiment, as well as entangled photons in the EPR Paradox, for photons are ageless as they remain in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension, which distributes locality in its expansion. A photon's agelesseness is a nonlocality in time, which arises because of the nonlocal expansion of the fourth dimension.
I quote from Einstein's 1912 manuscript in my paper:
"If we compare this with the considerations leading to the general Lorentz transformation, then we see that the transformation equations holding between x, y, z, u =
ict and x’, y’, z’, u’ = ict’ of two justified space-time reference systems satisfy the same conditions and are constructed in the same way as in the just considered three dimensional case. The only difference is that we now have four coordinates instead of three. We can formulate this in the following way: All of the “justified” time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is
referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation. One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u is
always purely imaginary. (Bold italics added)"
I then go on to state, "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction, just as the radii of an expanding sphere are perpendicular to its surface at every point."
When we contemplate the propagation of a photon, which is fundamentally represented by a spherically-symmetric wavefront expanding at the rate of c, we are contemplating the fourth expanding dimension, as an ageless, timeless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. The only way to remain stationary in the fourth dimension is to travel at the rate of c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. This is perhaps the simplest proof of MDT, and it is supported by clues from all realms of physics, including quantum mechanics (nonlocality, entanglement, qm's probabilistic nature), relativity (all of relativity is derived from MDT in my paper), and statistical mechanics (MDT provides a *physical* model for entropy).
I hope this helps answer your question!
You state, "it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."
The Lorentz Transformation and all of relativity emerge from my equation dx4/dt = ic. On page 6 of my paper I write, "Let us derive the Lorentz Transformations and Einstein’s relativity, including time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy from our simple postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions and its representative equation: dx4/dt = ic"
MDT is a type of physical theory that we have not seen for a while. It has a simple postulate, an equation, and it predicts relativity, while also offering a model that states something fundamentally new about our universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. And as physics ought, the theory presents a *physical* model underlying diverse fields and thus offering a unification via a logical postulate and mathematical equation. All the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, and wave/particle--are shown to arise from a common principle, along with time's arrows, entropy, entanglement, and relativity.
Moving Dimensions Theory—-which regards time as an emergent phenomenon—-respects the wisdom of Einstein’s words regarding the higher purpose of physical theories: “Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.”
"Logical simplicity." "Naturalness." "Empirical facts." MDT strongly salutes all of these.
MDT's postulate "the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions," suggests a new physical reality in a manner analagous to Coperinicus, Bruno, and Galileo stating, "the earth moves around the sun." Even though motivated by Einstein's "Logical simplicity," "Naturalness," and "Empirical facts," Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo was placed under house arrest, after being forced to recant and refute his statements that the earth moves around the sun before the "officials" of the Inquisition. But legend has it that as he walked away from the officials, he stated, "But yet it moves." "E pur si muove!"
Thank goodness we live in more civil times! One could almost imagine being forced to stand before a tenure committee today and read a sworn statement, "The fourth dimension does not move," which would be tantamount to stating "we do not have free will, we live in a block universe, and we should not have a physical model that unites entanglement, entropy, QM's probabilistic nature, relativity, and times arrows and assymetries, while unifying all the dualities, and we should continue to ignore Godel's and Einstein's problems with relativity's treatement of time and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, represented in Godel's universe and the EPR paradox, rather than resoling them with a simple equation. We must continue arguing with and refuting the photon."
But I imagine, as the professor walked away from the contemporary tenure committe, after reading the refutation, they might say, "and yet it--the fourth dimension--moves."
Thanks again for your comment, and I hope that I have answered your question!
Best & talk soon,
Dr. E
view post as summary
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Sep. 26, 2008 @ 08:24 GMT
Thank you Dr. E for your long reply.
Unfortunately, you have not answered my question, so I will reformulate it such that your answer requires ONLY ONE LETTER:
How t transforms under Lorentz transformations?
a) As a scalar
b) As a component of a vector
c) Neither a) nor b)
d) I don't know
To repeat, I need only one letter, a, b, c, or d.
Dr. E wrote on Sep. 26, 2008 @ 16:17 GMT
Thanks Hrvoje,
I thought I did answer your question which you summarized with, "In other words, it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."
MDT presents a physical reality that underlies quantum mechanics and relativity and thus relativity's covariance. That is how to interpret it.
Einstein's Relativity is...
view entire post
Thanks Hrvoje,
I thought I did answer your question which you summarized with, "In other words, it seems to me that your basic equation is not covariant, so I would like to know how do you interpret this."
MDT presents a physical reality that underlies quantum mechanics and relativity and thus relativity's covariance. That is how to interpret it.
Einstein's Relativity is derived from Moving Dimensiosn Theory's simple postulate and equation in my paper: dx4/dt = ic --the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. The theory also unfreezes time, grants us free will, liberates us from the block universe, while providing a *physical* model for entropy, nonlocality, quantum mechanics' probalistic nature and entanglement, time's assymetries and arrows in all realms, and the impossibilty of time travel into the distant past. Not bad for one equation! And as it liberates us from a block universe and grants us free will, we ought use this newfound freedom to celebrate! The first round is on me. :)
x4 is an actual coordinate. x4 is moving! The actual coordinate x4 is moving, whihc gives rise to relativity and the Lorentz Transformatyion.
"How can coordinates move?" Some physicists ask, to which I reply, "Remember Einstein's General Relativity--it was built upon coordinates which bend, warp, and move! So MDT is not entirely new! Just a little bit new! Just enough new to liberate us from block time and provide a common physical framework for diverse phenomena in entropy, quantum mechanics, and relativity. All that MDT does is postulate that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions: dx4/dt = ic."
Now you ask a new question, "How t transforms under Lorentz transformations?"
Moving Dimensions Theory agrees with Einstein's 1912 manuscript. I would highly recommend it!
So the question to you is, "How does t in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript transform under Lorentz transformations?"
a) As a scalar
b) As a componeent of a vector
c) Neither a) nor b)
d) You don't know
I'm somewhat puzzled by the purpose of your quiz, but time "transforms" under Lorentz Transformations as it transforms under Lorentz Transformations.
You can read more here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/vec4
.html
(good treatment of Lorentz Tranformation of Four-vectors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transforma
tion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_scalar
http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four
-vector
The section you will want to particulary look at in Einstein's 1912 Manusrcipt on Relativity is "The Lorentz Transfromation as a Rotational Transformation in Four Dimensional Space." It can be found on Manuscript page 43 and 44, which I also quote from in my paper.
Basically, The Lorentz Transformation and Einstein's Relativity are derived from an underlying principle in my paper--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c: dx4/dt = ic.
Thanks for the responce,
Best,
Dr. E
view post as summary
John Merryman wrote on Sep. 26, 2008 @ 16:44 GMT
A.
The problem is that the scale, being relative, is moving the opposite direction of the measurement. Just as physical activity goes from past events to future ones, these events go from being in the future to being in the past. So the motion is relational, thus not a vector.
As I pointed out to Dr. E previously, if he looks at his theory from the opposite perspective, if his fourth dimensional wave, which is light, is standing, than the three spatial dimensions are shrinking. Which was one of Einstein's original conclusions, as in his model, the photon is timeless. This required adding the cosmological constant to balance the contraction of space and maintain a stable universe.
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Sep. 29, 2008 @ 08:52 GMT
Dr. E, my answer to your question is d), because I have not been reading the original Einstein 1912 paper. Fortunately, the development of the theory of relativity has not stopped with that paper, and now physicists understand relativity much better than Einstein did.
Unfortunately, you have still not explicitly answered my question. I insist on this question, because I want to discuss your paper in modern terminology, not in terminology of 1912. When you answer this question, I would like to ask you other questions as well, but we cannot make any further progress before that.
Dr. E wrote on Sep. 29, 2008 @ 17:03 GMT
Thanks for the response Hrvoje,
How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.
Please take a look...
view entire post
Thanks for the response Hrvoje,
How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.
Please take a look at:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/special.p
hp
"Each page of the 1912 Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity reveals an exacting mind at work. Mathematical equations have been altered, words have been crossed out and entire paragraphs have been rewritten.
When Einstein was asked to write these chapters, he decided to do more than simply summarize relativity. Instead, he derived from first principles the basic tenets of his influential theory about light, time and energy. In the process, he refined his ideas even further. For example, he adopted a novel four-dimensional mathematical system in this manuscript to explain portions of Special Relativity. Physicists refer to this four-dimensional system as "space-time"—the union of three-dimensional space with the fourth dimension of time." --from http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/special.php
I
s this not then a paper worth reading? I highly recommend Einstein's 1912 paper, along with original papers on quantum mechanics found in Wheeler's QUANTUM THEORY & MEASUREMENT. This could be the start of a renaissance--a rebirth of the classical, heroic spirit that has ever fostered advancement in physics.
"If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control." --Martin Luther King Jr.
Is not the Lorentz Transformation in Einstein's 1912 paper the very same Lorentz Transformation of today? I believe it is. If you believe otherwise, please do share with us how today's Lorentz Transformation differs from 1912's Lorentz Transformation. In addition to Einstein not comprehending relativity, did Lorentz also not grasp the Lorentz Tranformation?
Perhaps you could elaborate on how postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did."
But if you have not read the 1912 Manuscript, how can you be sure that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did?" Maybe they are just telling you this for book deals and tenure--alas--we all must make a living in this rough and tumble world.
The suggestion that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did" comes as a bit of a surprise to me.
For instance, what specifically do postmodern physicists understand better than Einstein did about relativity?
I was unaware that anything had been refuted in Einstein's 1912 paper. I'm pretty sure that Einstein's Relativity has been shown to be true in experimental test, after test, after test. Is there some test where it has failed?
Is there some erroneous use of "terminology" in his 1912 Manuscript that leads us down a wrong road? How has "modern terminology" shown us the right way?
Furthermore, I am fairly certain that Einstein's 1912 treatment is the fundamental foundation of modern relativity. Are you saying there are cracks in it? Is there another manuscript or text that is better or more fundamental to special relativity than Einstein's 1912 Manuscript?
Einstein published his first papers on relativity in 1905--his "Annus Mirabilis." His 1912 Manuscript is an improvement upon even those early papers.
I understand that Einstein was not perfect and that even he made mistakes--you would enjoy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings
-Genius/dp/0393062937
But yet, he is the singular Founding Father of relativity in its general form. Even his mistakes were so often right--that is the amazing thing about the above book.
When I first encountered a formal treatement of relativity in PJ Peebles' E&M class at Princeton my freshman year, I do not recall Professor Peebles stating that we now understand relativity "much better than Einstein." Instead, we spent the first few classes going over Einstein's notation--the very terminology developed by Einstein. Are you saying that Einstein's terminology no longer applies? Should we notify Professor Peebles and the Princteon Physics department? Whose terminology and relativity should they be teaching?
Then, when I encountered General Relativity in Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's GRAVITATION, again, I saw Einstein's terminology; and again, I saw Minkowski's spacetime! Are you saying that this book no longer applies either? I never recall Wheeler stating that he understood relativity better than Einstein. He was a very, very humble man; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has departed this world. I do remember Wheeler clenching his fist one day and looking out the window of his Jadwin Hall office, and stating that "today's world lacks the noble," and then turning and smiling and saying, "and it's your generation's job to bring it back." I was just a twenty-year-old junior, nodding silently and anxiously in agreement, and those words have stayed with me and meant more and more over the years, as they seem to explain so much about postmodern life--our disregard for the classical eternities, and our arrogance that has lead to the current financial crisis, the breakdown of the family, and the resounding lack of progress in physics, other than the progress that has been made by deconstructing the classics, which tends to work better in realms that do not require empirical evidence.
I also remember standing in PJ Peebles' office that year, when I had him for quantum mechanics, and asking him, "when a photon is emitted from a light bulb, do we really not know where it's headed? Is it really just a probabilistic wave expanding at the rate of c?" "Yes," he said. And that stuck with me, because this is what quantum mechanics telles us. And relativity tells us that the ageless photon stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt = ic. It was many years later that I wrote that equation down, but somehow I sensed it that year, walking between Peebles' and Wheelers' offices.
Legend has it that Einstein eventually came up with relativity because he so often contemplated what it would be like to catch up with light--a pursuit which began in his childhood. I often wonder, had Einstein known that light actually propagates as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront at the rate of c--had he actually known quantum mechanics--would he have seen that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic?
Well Hrvoje, I am somewhat puzzled at this point regarding what your aim is. I am not sure we can make "further progress" if you insist that Einstein's terminology no longer applies to relativity, as it is the very terminology that I believe defines relativity.
Please provide specific examples supporting your contentions and elaborating on how
1) postmodern "physicists understand relativity much better than Einstein did," in his 1912 Manuscript (other than Star Trek, time travel, hyperspace, and wormholes and other entities that have never been seen beyond the silver screen)
and
2) how "modern terminology" differs from "1912 terminology"
I then may be able to answer your questions, once I comprehend the context you are oeprating in.
Thanks again for your time and responses!
One of byproducts of Moving Dimensions Theory has been another hypothesis--by losing touch with the foundational papers, physicists have lost touch with the foundational questions, and without those questions, all is for naught. Too many exist in a postmodern realm detached from reality, where all one must do is subscribe to the "idea" that we understand physics far better than its actual founders--it's very giants--and that loop quantum gravity and string theory are thus naturally superior to Einstein's relativity, which "Einstein did not understand." Such a system tends to favor the political over the philosophical, as we are told that mathematical eternities--such as those in Einstein's beautiful 1912 Manuscript on Relativity--are no longer true. And as funding and politics blossom, physics grinds to a halt, detached from its very fount--Truth and the rugged individual who holds Truth higher than even their own career, as did Einstein. He wrote his 1905 papers, which revolutionized physics, not as a professor, but as a patent clerk. Even Newton stated that he stood upon the shoulders of giants to see further, but today it seems too many try to stand there to cut their heads off. And the price paid is a great one, for ultimately one cannot deconstruct nor politicize Truth, and, as Galileo said after redacting his theory that the earth moves before teh Inquisition, "and yet, it moves."
A great essay to read is Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. "--R.P. Feynman, http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
Best,
Dr. E
view post as summary
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Sep. 30, 2008 @ 09:28 GMT
1) In 1912 general relativity has not yet been discovered.
2) It seems to me (correct me if a am wrong) that the tensor terminology has not been widely used in 1912. At least, YOU do not use this terminology in your paper.
Dr. E wrote on Sep. 30, 2008 @ 16:12 GMT
Thanks Hrvoje,
I am fully aware that General Relativity was not yet discovered in 1912.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity states, "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916."
Einstein's 1912 Manuscript concerns itself with Special Relativity.
On manuscript page 46...
view entire post
Thanks Hrvoje,
I am fully aware that General Relativity was not yet discovered in 1912.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity states, "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916."
Einstein's 1912 Manuscript concerns itself with Special Relativity.
On manuscript page 46 Einstein introduces four vectors and on page 47 he introduces tensors. He then uses "Einstein's Tensor Notation" all the way through page 70. This is twenty-four pages of Einstein's tensor notation--more than 1/3 of Einstein's 1912 Manuscript.
Earlier you wrote, "I insist on this question, because I want to discuss your paper in modern terminology, not in terminology of 1912."
How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, tensors are yet tensors, four vectors are yet four vectors, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.
So please do tell me how does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?"
I feel you are trying to argue against my paper and Moving Dimensions Theory by trying to put down a paper penned by Einstein. I imagine Einstein would be forgiving, as you have not read his 1912 Manuscript and are apparently not familiar with it.
Einstein's tensor notation was *inspired* by Minkowski's spacetime. On page 46 of his manscipt, write before he introduces four vectors and his tensor notation, he writes, "Minkowski has the very fruitful idea of reshaping the equations of the theory of relativity, which include, with his choice of the time coordinate, four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous to the coordinates x,y,z of spatial geomtry, in a manner very similar to the way this is done by the vector calculus with respect to three-dimensional space. He accomplishes that (following the example of vector analysis) by conceptionally uniting a number of quantities (or differntial operations) whose transofrmation properties are of a certain type. In what follows, we shall consider the most important of these auxillary concepts that greatly simplify the system of the theory of relativity." --Albert Einstein, page 46, 1912 Manuscript on Relativity
So you see Einstein's words: "In what follows, we shall consider the most important of these auxillary concepts that greatly simplify the system of the theory of relativity." So it is that Einstein's tensor notation does not change the meaning of relativity, but simplifies it.
And a again, we see a clue for Moving Dimensions Theory in Einstein's words!
"Minkowski has the very fruitful idea of reshaping the equations of the theory of relativity, which include, with his choice of the time coordinate, four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous to the coordinates x,y,z of spatial geomtry, in a manner very similar to the way this is done by the vector calculus with respect to three-dimensional space."
Not the words "four equivalent coordinates that are wholly analogous" and "with his choice of the time coordinate."
Well, we do get four equivalent coordinates x1, x2, x3, x4. But there is something different about x4, ofr it alone is related to time, with x4 = ict. Now, and forever, x4 is inextricably linked to time. This means that as the seconds tick away on your watch, x4 must move!
Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Not only is all of relativity derived from this simple postulate and equation, but a *physical* model is presented which accounts for quantum entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, and all of time's arrows and assymetries, as well as the invariance of the velocity of light. The deeper invariance is dx4/dt = ic -- the fundamental source of all motion and change in the universe. Finally we have been liberated from the block universe, and yet we get to keep relativity. Finally time has been unfrozen and motion has been granted to all objects that move through space-time at c, which includes ever single object! And with this newfound free-will, we can travel on back to Einstein's 1912 Manuscript--back to that heroic age of physics, and with simple logic and reason, see something new, bold, and profound. We can present a novel postulate and a new equation that describe a hitherto formally unacknowledged aspect of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, fathering time and its assymetries and arrows, relativity, quantum mechnics, entropy, the universe's expansion, and Moving Dimensions Theory.
Another interesting paper would be Are New Ideas Important in Postmodern Physics? Is it proper and fashionable for postmodern physicists to read foundational papers and think about them? I would say it ought be mandatory! For Newton himself said that he has only seen further because he stood upon the shoulders of giants.
And Newton was ranked as the greatest all-time physicist, for what it's worth: "http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2927"
"Sir Isaac Newton has come first in the PhysicsWeb survey to find out which scientists have made the most important contributions to physics. Not only does Newton's work on mechanics and gravitation form the basis of much of classical physics, but Newton also made major contributions to the studies of optics, light and heat. Second place goes to Albert Einstein, who developed the theories of special and general relativity and discovered the photoelectric effect. He is followed by James Clerk Maxwell, who unified electricity and magnetism within a single theoretical framework - electromagnetism. The man who paved the way for Newton's laws of gravitation and helped develop the telescope, Galileo, is fourth. And in fifth place is Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum mechanics." --from http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2927
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." --Isaac Newton
Surely we ought heed Newton's advice!
Best,
Dr. E
view post as summary
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Dr.E,
You have raised several issues of fundamental nature. But i notice a problem that all such is issues are interwoven. If fundamental constants are not constants, problems arise. Let me say that that the velocity of light,c has seen a downward trend eversince the birth of the Universe. Expts show that it has decreased minutely in the last 12 billion years.In fact if one can do cosmological expts., closer to 13 -14 billion years of the life of the Universe, one may even discover a much larger change. The same holds for other 'constants too! Next, there are similar doubts about the relative strengths of the four force-fields that may have emerged out at different stages of the very early universe. Thus, Physics as we know today or for that matter in the last 1000 years may well be quite different inn the early stages of the Universe. Kindly have a look at my Essay posted as ' Mysteries of the Universe - a perspective'. Uniformity of time as a conceptual parameter is tied to the velocity of light, the fastest means of observation that we apparently have. Here comes another factor from the non-physical side that controls our mind/brain activities. What are the time scales involved in the thought processes of different variety, e.g.,normal( routine),intuitive and may i add ' inspirational'. The latter is not a part of one's individual consciousness only but it depends on the individual's interactions with others! Even past, present and future can get intermixed if we consider such complexities! Your response will be surely illuminating for me in this regard. NN
Dr. E wrote on Oct. 5, 2008 @ 17:31 GMT
Thanks for the words, Narendra!
Yes--you write, "Let me say that that the velocity of light, c has seen a downward trend eversince the birth of the Universe. Expts show that it has decreased minutely in the last 12 billion years.In fact if one can do cosmological expts., closer to 13 -14 billion years of the life of the Universe, one may even discover a much larger change."
On page 9 of my paper, I write, "The Cosmological Arrow of Time: As all motion derives from the fundamental motion dx4/dt=ic, the universe’s general motion is expansion. If the absolute rate of c changes, the rate of expansion of the universe will appear to change. Hence an accelerating/decelerating universe." --http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/McGucken_Time_as_
an_Emergen.pdf
dx4/dt = ic implies that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. What happens if the rate of expansion of the fourth dimension changes? The velocity of light will change, but as the velocity of light is measures with respect to time, and as the measurement of time is wed to change which is wed to the propagation of light, c will yet be c. MDT provides a *physical* reason as to why light and time are so interconnected on a fundamental level. Light, by which we meausre time, is but matter caught upon the fourth expanding dimension. Thus time inherits properties of the fourth dimension, but it is not the fourth dimension. x4 = ict. And if the rate of the expansion of the fourth dimension changes, then c changes.
And if c is changing, it may appear that the universe's expansion is accelerating, or that some sort of dark energy is accelerating the pioneer spacecraft/universe.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat
ing_universe
So it is that MDT could be used to perhaps explain dark energy and/or a faster velocity of light in the early universe. I will have to develop this more!
I will read your essay tonight!
Thanks for the words & Best,
Dr. E
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 05:36 GMT
Thanks very much for your elaborations, as i could understand you better. Being an experimentalist through and through, i am in a territory that is being dominated by the theorists of high calibre like you. But you will certainly agree that evolution of concepts and precepts are not based on theory where mathematics is used as a tool to construct the theoretical side. Both theory and experiment contribute. But the latter has an edge as, nothing can get fully accepted unless proven correct exptally. My word of caution for the theorists will be to first become clear about the concepts/precepts evolved about the problem at hand before proceeeding further mathematically about the theory. Also, intermediate steps in a theory too may be verifiable experimentally and the same needs to be done. Only then a theory can stand the test of time.
Dr. E wrote on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 16:19 GMT
Hello Narenda,
We need more experimentalists here!! For truly, experimentalists are the ones who wrap their hands around the foundational questions.
Although I started off in theoretical physics, I moved more and more towards experimental physics and engineering. Check out my dissertation:
http://elliotmcgucken.com/dissertation.html
Well
, Einstein would agree with you!
"But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics -- indeed, of modern science altogether." --(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions)
Best,
Dr. E :)
Dr.NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 17:16 GMT
i agree pure logic till tempered with available observations and experiences of a scientist, have no relevance. You promised going thru my two Attached Mss posted subsequently. i eagerly await your bed time study and response to them.
Let me share with you that ' consciousness ' a non-physical provides the Expanding paradigms for the future growth of science. Currently developed science methodology is restricting innovative growth in science. To illustrate a bit more, it is my personal feeling that huge expenditures in sophisticated scientific Epts., like Large Beam Collider of Cern, may not provide as much new information, as perhaps expts being done using Wilkinson Anisotropy Telescope data coming from the sattelite about the Cosmological measurements on early Universe closer to Bigbang.
Dr. NN wrote on Oct. 8, 2008 @ 05:52 GMT
Last posting : Wilkinson 'Microwave ' anistropy! Please find discussion on ' consciousness by other essay contributors like Dr . Song of Korea. We need indepth discussion on such issues that may help expand the paradigms in Science. Only then can we expect bigger breakthroughs to come forth.
Clinton "Kyle" Miller wrote on Oct. 8, 2008 @ 13:43 GMT
Hrvoje,
I loved the essay. Very astute and cogent! I think I implied a similar discrepancy in my essay, however, it was not the main emphasis of my essay. Great job in teasing apart the two convoluted meanings of 'time'.
Dr. NN
It might interest you that I as well discuss the topic of consciousness in my essay.
CKM
Dr.NN wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 04:00 GMT
To CKM, In order that discussion on ' consciousness ' becomes meaningful, we need to see the points of view expressed by different authors of this essay series non this aspect. In- depth exchanges are required on the topic ' Science, Consciousness & Spirituality ' to provide an expanding paradigms to Science cum Technology. i understand that 2 World Conferences have been held on this topic by the medical scientists all over. It confines itself to the miracles observed in treatment of fatal diseases. i feel it is time we fundamental scientists, take over this topic and provide an overall Expansion to such a concept.
Clinton "Kyle" Miller wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 06:14 GMT
Dr. NN,
In my paper I reference a theory of consciousness (practically the only comprehensive one), called "Orchestrated Objective Reduction". I consider this a meaningful discussion/topic; what do you think? While it remains to be seen if this theory is, in fact, correct--I believe that, as of right now, it stands as our singular hope for unifying the human condition. For these reasons, I would suggest that we attempt to falsify it (see the prediction of the so-called "gravitational objective reduction" in my essay).
I look forward to seeing your response!
CKM
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 08:47 GMT
Clinton "Kyle" Miller,
Thank you for your kind words.
I very much enjoyed your essay too.
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 07:44 GMT
To Clinton Miller's interjection on my essay and his own essay on the Posts of the essay by Dr. Nikolic , is proving to be like cross talks on the phone! Let us work out adequate separation in such Postings , as issues discussed by many of the authors are invoking 'consciousness' of the observer of scientific phenomena. In my view, consciousness too has different levels and dimensions too. There are interactions between individuals and then possible interaction with cosmic/ all pervading consciousness with independent individuals. Non-physical nature makes it difficult to define the possible modeling parameters for ' consciousness'. Personally, it is dangerous to do work out modeling parameters, as significant unknowns are likely to be left out. An innovative scientific methodology is to be worked out carefully introducing well thought out 'concepts', linking physical with the non-physical. There are some Yoga concepts to approach the Truth, developed by an Indian Saint PATANJALI thousands of years back, that i have quoted in my essay and the attached manuscripts to provide the holistic approach!
N.Nath wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 13:30 GMT
To Dr. Nikolic;
i have conjectured about the nature of dark matter in my essay. Also, i have attempted an explanation for initial inflation of the universe in a trillionth part of a second through 'negative' gravity of primordial dark matter constituents. nature dictates the interactions as per its intelligent design and physics job is just to explain the observed. Physics developed thus far may find it difficult to dictate explanations for some unexplained phenomenon. Thus a logical holistic approach may well help build on our current methodology in sciences! The Unified field may well be postulated to pre-exist the Big Bang with an intelligence to design the Universe(s). I have conjectured extremely heavy but neutral quarks to form the primordial matter which decayed very very fast under that extremely strong Unified field. The other forms of fields components emerged as per the requirements of that intelligent design. This may be also considered as the ever-existing pure/cosmic consciousness, which remains unaffected through physical creation of the Universe(s).
matthew kolasinski wrote on Oct. 14, 2008 @ 06:44 GMT
Hello Mr. Nikolić,
i'm slowly working my way through the papers here.
i enjoyed reading yours. i appreciate that you kept it not too technical. communications is getting to be an issue. people in science spend all their lives studying what they need to know just to get to talk about something specific, there winds up only two or three others in the whole world to chat with about...
view entire post
Hello Mr. Nikolić,
i'm slowly working my way through the papers here.
i enjoyed reading yours. i appreciate that you kept it not too technical. communications is getting to be an issue. people in science spend all their lives studying what they need to know just to get to talk about something specific, there winds up only two or three others in the whole world to chat with about it. not good. especially considering how much info there is out there these days. getting complicated. which brings me to...
two names for time may indeed be a useful pedagogic tool.
but i'm concerned about the potential for complicating things more rather than simplifying/clarifying the situation.
re:
"But is a measure of time the same thing as time itself?"
no, it isn't. think about the characteristic properties of what gets measured and what is used to measure it. would you use a clock to measure a desk? no, of course not. what are you measuring? and what is it about a clock? do you set the clock down next to what you're measuring and mark off it's width? no. what is it about a clock that provides a unit of measurement (this was more obvious before digital clocks came along)? i don't know how we'd go about measuring time itself. as you said, in physics, it just is.
you might enjoy reading some of the observations on the origins of the notion of time in 'some thoughts on time' elsewhere here.
yes. consciousness. needs study. i'm noting this to be a recurring theme in the papers here.
maybe wisdom would be good too, but that doesn't appear to fall within the purview of physics. ;-)
i seem to have a very different picture of consciousness than you apparently envision it.
i have it being both effected by and effecting the external 'reality'. what enabled you to move your body to type the words, 'unmatter cannot influence matter' while identifying consciousness as unmatter?
this is an issue for physics.
in order to study consciousness, however, physics will in some way have to objectify 'unmatter'.
that's going to be tricky.
Pitkänen's paper here gets into it a little, but it's not easy to follow. i'm not terribly up on string theory, and he's got this blend with quantum stuff...
looks like a couple of others here get into consciousness specifically also, but i've not gotten to them yet.
i seem to have consciousness (not to be confused with conscious awareness) as being remarkably aware of a tremendous amount of information, that one of it's most important functions is actually to filter out most of the material as personally irrelevant, presenting a 'news brief' on the fly to conscious awareness of that which is of greater personal interest. part of you is aware of the color of the chair you sit on, the whir of the cooling fan on the computer, maybe the tick of a clock, and other stuff that's near by you at this moment and if you stopped to think about it you could probably name a lot of items and characteristics of your immediate environment without even looking, but your conscious awareness doesn't need to know all that right now. so it gets filtered out of the data being presented. that's a small example. i seem to have consciousness at it's heart a vast sea, quite possibly extending to the ends of time/space (that's not actually as far as it might seem, takes a shortcut through i). just that we don't need to know that much. there are also some advantages on occasion to 'pretending' to be dumb. surprises can on occasion be fun (that first meeting with a special someone) and would you really want to consciously know how you're going to die? somewhere within us, i have reason to believe we all do know such things.
i don't know if i'd say that free will is an illusion, but it certainly has it's limits. in any instance, while we may have multiple options for actions, we are invariably limited to actualizing only one action in any given instance (i don't see how i can both sit down at the computer here and walk out the front door at the same time), whatever that choice may be, which makes each moment unique. it looks like determinism because of this uniqueness of a moment, but seems to be something of a blend of intersecting influences, including our own 'free will'. a 'negotiation' of sorts. significantly enters into crossing busy streets and such.
:-)
matt kolasinski
view post as summary
Narendra wrote on Oct. 19, 2008 @ 05:19 GMT
Dear Dr.nikolick and Mr. Clinton Miller,
we all need to keep this essay postings confined to the text/ posting on this text. However, consciousness has come out to be a major 'expanding paradigm' in presenting our scientific essays on 'The nature of Time'. The hope should be to go a step further in modifying the currently accepted 'Methodology of Science'. It requires wide acceptance amongst us, public as well as scientists in the mysteries of the Universe. May i request the authors of these essays from the western part of the World to become aware of the deep philosophical insights the Asian philosophers tto. For example, the originator of Yoga, very popular these days in the western world too, Rishi Patanjali who formulated a manuscript nearly 4000 yrs. back on ' Yoga Shastra '. Medicinal and health preservation aspects of Yoga have already been admitted all over the world. The problem is that Yoga needs to be correctly implemented in practice and only approved Preceptors/trainers should be accepted by public. However, the other benefit of Yoga practices often remain hidden, its capacity to control the human mind, make it calm. This aspect can improvr the human personality and capability to much higher levels of consciousness, as intrinsically it improves the interaction between individual and cosmic consciousness, unifying nature with humans!
Prem Nath Tiwari wrote on Oct. 21, 2008 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Dr.Nicolic,
I have offered an explaition of 'our subjective experience of time' in terms of cosciousness in my write up dated 20th October, under my paper titled "Ultimate Reality and Non-Material Origin of Universe". Please see it for your comments and questions if any.
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 22, 2008 @ 14:10 GMT
Consciousness/nothingness/perfect silence seem to create things physical, how we can't know through present science methodology.Human mind involves consciousness in its operation and thus the brain gets involved too with consciousness. Some time back, Prof Eccles of Oxford University Professor of neurology was quoted as believing that the neurons in the supplementary motor area ( SMA ) of the brain were seen to get activated by external influences (outside the human body). He postulated a non-physical covering for the SMA that keeps a record of all such interactions and also does not die with the human body. Strangely, there is an Indian belief in incarnation where the rebirth of the soul of a dead person is supposed to carry the gist of one's actions in the past lives , called the SAMSKARAS. Thus, there are mysterious aspects that are not that easy to comprehend in the methodology of Science that has been worked out and believed strongly thus far! Here, i happen to cover partly the comments made by P.N. Tiwari in his posting above.
Peter Morgan wrote on Oct. 29, 2008 @ 16:20 GMT
I write to comment that I argue in my FQXi essay contest paper that there is a direction of time in QFT (which might be said to be because of the positivity of the Hamiltonian, but I would prefer to say that it is because the algebra of observables is not invariant under time-reversal). This perhaps has something small to say about your comments on page 3 of your paper, "Both the “future” and the “past”, as well as the “presence”, are there, without any of them being less certain or less real then the other". I note that your sentiment that "Moreover, any attempt to define “future”, “past”, and “presence” in an observer independent way destroys the mathematical structure of the theory in an artificial and arbitrary manner" could be said to underlie the argument of my paper.
I apologize that I'm asking you to read my paper, "The direction of time in quantum field theory", on your comment thread. I found your paper interesting.
On a small detail in your paper, you comment that "In modern science, a positivistic philosophy dominates", however I believe a gradual shift can be detected amongst those who are more positivistic to accommodate the post-positivist critique of Quine, Feyerabend, Lakatos, and Kuhn, and of more recent writers, particularly the issues of theory incommensurability, the pessimistic meta-induction, the underdetermination of theory by evidence, and theory-ladenness. Although post-positivism is rightly criticized as non-constructive, nonetheless there is now broad acceptance that theoretical models are not as securely grounded by an observation language as a positivist would claim. I observe also that a Platonist view of Mathematical Physics is a common impulse in Physics, which I consider to be under-represented in positivism. Whether someone is willing to take seriously an effective field theory view of Mathematical models could be thought of as an acid test.
You also comment that "According to positivism, it does not make sense to discuss about something unless it can be empirically experienced", to which we could add that according to post-positivism, it does not make sense to discuss something unless we can place it in a larger theoretical context. For example, the edited volume "Models as Mediators" takes as its theme that we can only discuss anything in the world by constructing a thought-model that mediates between our sensory experience and what we say about it.
The paragraph of yours from which I'm quoting continues to ask "So, how to make positivism compatible with the requirement of objectivity?" and offers that "The answer is - by measurement." I think this is too brief to do proper justice to the distinction between inter-subjectivity and objectivity, either of which, I would say, is a sufficient requirement for science to be possible.
These are larger issues than we are asked to address for this essay contest, however, and are rightly small issues in your paper.
Best wishes,
Peter Morgan.
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 30, 2008 @ 05:28 GMT
dear Dr. Nikolic,
Many posts have come up on your essay, without any response post from your goodself. May be wisdom is downing on you through silence thus far. Let it be shared with the commentators for their benefit! The choice however rests with you alone.
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Oct. 30, 2008 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,
There are two reasons why I don't respond to the comments.
First, with some of them I completely agree and I have nothing new to say.
Second, some of them are purely philosophical, so I don't want to dwell into purely philosophical debates.
Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 30, 2008 @ 14:25 GMT
Thanks for the response. Philosophical comments on ' consciousness' deserve comments as many of the essays including yours, dwell on this non-physical parameter while dicussing ' The Nature of Time '. Your comments will benefit we all who are participating through various postings. In fact my own essay ' Mysteries of the Universe- a perspective' may benefit from your enlightening comments. Even the youngest among us, Clinton Kyle Miller may desire your intervention in an explict way than mere approval!
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Nov. 13, 2008 @ 09:20 GMT
In my essay, I mainly discuss the block-time picture of the universe in classical (i.e., non-quantum) physics.
Yesterday I have finished a paper (not an essay, but also not too technical) in which the block-time way of thinking is used to propose a simple solution of the problem of time in quantum mechanics. You can download it from
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.1905
Comments on that paper would be wellcome as well.
T H Ray wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 15:37 GMT
Hrjove,
Has Ken Wharton seen your arXiv paper? I think your equation 6 might be of interest, for treatment in the 4-volume.
Tom
Ken Wharton wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 19:05 GMT
Hi Hrvoje,
Great essay! I agree with just about everything in it, but I still can't quite imagine telling my students that time in physics has little to do with their notion of time (even though it may be true!). (Your arXiv paper, on the other hand, I'm having some problems with; I'll email you those comments separately once I have time to write them up.)
You mentioned in the comments of my essay that there are now "two" block universe essays -- are there really only two? I haven't yet read most of them, of course, but I was hoping there would certainly be more than just two! (I thought Carlo's essay, at least, should fit in this category.)
And, since I know where you're coming from on the physics side of things, I just have to ask... Are you imagining that the Bohmian quantum potential is what you call "unmatter" in this essay?
I also discuss Bohmian QM in my own essay, and conclude that it's the *best* standard interpretation, but the ontology of the quantum potential remains my main concern; I don't see how it can fit into the block universe. Related to this, I'd be interested to hear what you think about the portion of my essay concerning configuration space.
Cheers,
Ken
Mark Stuckey wrote on Nov. 29, 2008 @ 03:15 GMT
Hrvoje,
“On the other hand, unlike time, pime does not lapse or flow. Pime simply is, just like space. In this block-pime picture of the universe, there is simply no room for a pime-travel paradox [11], just as there is no room for a space-travel paradox.”
What about Polchinski's paradox, for example?
“Now we are finally ready to answer the question posed in the title of this paper. Why many physicists still don’t accept the block-time picture of the universe? This is because they use the same word “time” for two different entities. One of them, that we still calltime, is indeed incompatible with the block-time picture. The block picture refers only to the other, now called pime. All the confusion stems from a tacit assumption that these
two “times” are the same, while they are not.”
Exactly, I agree.
Great essay,
Mark
Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 16:39 GMT
The sensing of physical time in Physics gets messy when one takes it as the fourth dimension in space/time picture. It gets tied to 'c'. The same is no longer seen to be constant if one believes cosmolgy eperiment on the light coming from an object 12 billion years back. It came out to be slightly more, over and above the measuremental errors of the day. If one goes back further to within fisrt billion years of our universe, my essay indicates the likelihood of a still higher value for 'c'. Everything is fine if we confine ourselves to more recent times. The implication is that Physics is not the same for the earlier times of the universe. What we have worked out now holds good in more recent times? If 'c' changes, time scale need to change too. For the possibility of multi-universes, the picture can be still more open. The dimensionality aspect for the gravity as conditioned by quantum aspects really throws another challenge for the concept of time within and outside of a system involved!
Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 07:10 GMT
Dear Hrvoje,
Well written and interesting exposure! Congratulations!
After reading your essay I tried to test your proposal of pime/time difference in practice. I had to meet somebody at noon, and I took the subway. During this trip, I checked the time when I left home, the time at the subway’s clock, the time when the subway arrived at the destination station, and again when I arrived at the meeting point. I used my table clock, my phone clock, the subway clock, and I also compared with my friend’s clock. Were all these times, or “pimes”? My understanding is that all these devices measure physical time.
During the travel in the subway, because I was a little late, I was anxious, and the time seemed to flow very slowly. When I returned home, I could be relaxed and read from a book, and the same time in subway seemed to me much shorter. So, this was the subjective time. But the subway clock showed the same time lapse in both cases.
When I was traveling in the subway towards the meeting point, somebody asked me “what time is it”. Of course, the question being about time, I should have answered “the time is flowing too slow, I am in hurry”. Instead, I decided to simply tell the “pime” showed by my cell phone, to keep the appearance of a mentally sane person.
People use the term “time” when they really discuss about pime. When they ask “what time is it”, they expect you to tell them the “pime”. They use instead of the term “time” in your acceptation, the term “subjective time”, or “psychological time”.
I would say that I see another difference between the frozen time and the flowing time, which you felt, and you may or may not succeed in expressing, but I failed in perceiving it from your essay. In Tegmark’s formulation, is the difference between the “bird view”, and the “frog view”. Is the difference between a flatlander, and a visitor from the 3-rd dimension. Of course, physicists do this by their imagination, not by traveling in other dimensions.
The pime is viewed geometrically, as a 1-dimensional structure. The psychological time is 0-dimensional – is the experience of the present. To put all the 1-dimensional information in a 0-dimensional structure, we admit that the time is changing – it is flowing.
I believe that it is the switch between “bird view” and “frog view” responsible for the confusions about time which you are trying to solve by the introduction of the new term “pime”. “Pime” is the time in the “bird view”, and “time” is in the “frog view”.
Best wishes,
Cristi Stoica
“Flowing with a Frozen River”,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 09:09 GMT
Ken,
You are right that a many-particle wave function lives in the 4n-dimensional configuration spacetime, not in the 4-dimensional spacetime. I also agree with you that it is a puzzle that needs a better understanding. This is something that I am working on, but at the moment I do not have a completely satisfying answer.
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 09:19 GMT
Mark,
I discuss the paradoxes of the Polchinski type in more detail in Ref. [12].
Essentially, they are resolved by observing that only self-consistent solutions of the equations of motion are solutions. If some initial condition does not lead to a self-consistent solution, then such an initial condition is simply impossible. This is not in conflict with free will if you assume that a true free will does not exist. But even free will can be introduced consistently, by proposing that free will does not choose initial conditions, but self-consistent solutions themselves.
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 09:23 GMT
Cristi,
You have presented a nice explanation of the difference between pime and time. Thanks!
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 09:33 GMT
Ken,
I do NOT think that the quantum potential is "unmatter". (Although, I must admit that sometimes I am tempted to think that it might have something to do with it.)
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 09:40 GMT
T H Ray,
I already had a private discussion with Ken on my arXiv paper. I think he liked Eq. (6), but let him say it for himself.
Narendra wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 13:43 GMT
Pime and time distinction appears fine but it still leaves the physical time with problems if 'c' is not a constant. Its linearity and scaling comes into question, as also the interpretations / attempts made from the cosmological data from distant objects! There is still we need to work on to solve such mysteries of reality too!
J. Smith wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Hrvoje,
if understand, the distinction between pime and time you provide remains unresolved. What is your conclusive statement on that?
John
Hrvoje Nikolic wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear J. Smith,
In my essay, I argue that the distinction between time and pime is resolved, but that the relation between them is unresolved.
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 01:22 GMT
This is a question to all those who understood the notions pime and time:
I agree that we need two different notions of time.
Our ordinary abstract time relates to an arbitrarily chosen common point of reference and is thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Regardless whether or not one is aware of it, any observable physical or mental process can only be influenced by what already happened. If we consider future events to influence earlier processes in advance, then we are cheating ourselves.
May I therefore identify pime with elapsed time, i.e. with growing rather than flowing time?
My question relates to attached files
Eckard Blumschein
attachments:
8_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf,
9_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf
Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 21:18 GMT
Eckard Blumschein wrote (Dec. 25, 2008 @ 01:22 GMT): "...any observable physical or mental process can only be influenced by what already happened. If we consider future events to influence earlier processes in advance, then we are cheating ourselves."
The tricky issue is whether "what already happened" is enough to determine, even statistically, what we observe: please check out Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem in my essay on QM
here.
D. Chakalov
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 00:24 GMT
Dear Dimi Chakalov,
Thank you for pointing me to Conway-Kochen. They are mathematicians. While I was not yet able to carefully read their reasoning, I nonetheless got the impression that they took Hilbert space and what they called EPR phenomenon for granted.
In this case, I just suspect that the conclusion of EPR might be due to an inappropriate mathematical point of view. This suspicion of mine relates to
- apparent symmetries
- evidently careless use of complex quantities by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, etc.
- Weyl's confession in 1931
- v. Neumann's confession in 1935,
- obviously unrealistic single photon counting by Gompf et al. in PRL 1997
- lacking ability of Nimtz to explain his measured superluminal propagation of signals
- so far unfulfilled promise for a quantum computer
- so far missing evidence for Higgs bosons
- non-convincing arguments by Schulman
- further murky matter
Of course, I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, and I do not exclude being wrong. However, what I looked at reminded me of Ewald's sphere of redundant complex wave numbers.
I reckon myself to those who do not doubt that lady moon is to be seen even if nobody looks at her. I do not even believe in Cantor's naive set theory. I used MATLAB as to demonstrate how uncertainty also affects real-valued time-frequency representations, see my M284, M285.
E. Blumschein
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.