Register to reply 
Time Dilation. The faster you travel the longer I have to wait for you to return? 
Share this thread: 
#91
Dec2212, 08:14 AM

P: 126

Lorentz admitted that LT timecoordinates can not work in an ether (LET) context. LET with LT is a contradiction in terms. If you think you know better than Lorentz himself you have to do more work to convince me. 


#92
Dec2212, 10:35 AM

P: 126

Here is what I mean.
Green is the ether world. If you put green's coordinates of event A (0.5, 0.5) in the LT it gives you the red coordinates (Lorentz' local time) (0,289, 0,289). The red coordinates (time and space dimensions) have no meaning at all in the green ether context. Not even if you consider the green ether through event R3. In LET only the green coordinates have a physical meaning. Not the red ones. For the red ones you have to consider a physical red 3D world through R3 and A, which Einstein's SR allowed, but not Lorentz' LET. That's why Lorentz said: <<The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>> The LT only have a full physical meaning in SR, not LET. 


#93
Dec2212, 01:53 PM

Mentor
P: 16,951




#94
Dec2212, 02:04 PM

P: 848

And again, the block universe is more fundamental as compared to the ad hoc LET. It's a little bit like the difference between the heliocentric model of our solar system vs. the mathematical model of the earth centered solar system with cycles and epicycles, etc. 


#95
Dec2212, 03:29 PM

P: 1,162

So your implication that SR considers t and t' as absolute in the sense Lorentz meant is not logically valid and in fact is antithetical to SR as it depends on the idea of an absolute scale or reference. You can interpret Einsteins thoughts as meaning conventionally synchronized clocks define actual or absolute simultaneity , which is the basis of your interpretation of Block Time but I don't think you can back up that interpretation with Einstein's actual statements and I flatly don't believe it. It seems fundamental to SR that simultaneity is totally indeterminate and relative with the exception of colocated events. It is true that SR denies the classical concept of a universal or absolute now but it does not replace it with a set of many universal or absolute "nows" . One for every velocity. In actuality SR does not explicitly negate the possibility of a universal "now" it simply shows that any such instant is indeterminate and thus superfluous. Like an ether, or absolute motion. Even given a hypothetical persistent and precreated 4d continuum , it is clear that consciousness exists in a limited slice of time and so in effect moves. SO there is neither any objection to the possibility that all consciousness is absolutely simultaneous. I.e a single slice of awareness progressing through the continuum nor any means of empirically falsifying such a concept. It is self evident that the various clocks throughout the universe would not correspond to this simultaneity but how could this be observed or measured within the structure??? There may be a number of people who are open to the possibility of Block time in some form ( I don't completely reject it) but I would be surprised if there are many people who understand SR who consider conventionally synchronized clocks to be absolutely simultaneous. WHich is exactly what you are claiming wouldn't you agree??? 


#96
Dec2212, 04:13 PM

Mentor
P: 16,951




#97
Dec2212, 04:23 PM

P: 848




#98
Dec2212, 04:27 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,039




#99
Dec2212, 04:28 PM

Mentor
P: 16,951

PeterDonis already dealt with the rest of your post. 


#100
Dec2212, 05:10 PM

P: 126

Austin0,
Thanks for your reaction, I read it 4 times, but I am unable to understand what you exactly mean. I especially do not understand your 'absolute' and universal' terminology in the context what I mean. I think you didn't understand what I mean. If my spacetime diagram is wrong , tell me where it is wrong. How would you draw the spacetime diagram showing the Lt time coordinates? Same advice for Dalespam. If my spacetime diagram is wrong , tell me where it is wrong. How would you draw the spacetime diagram showing the Lt time coordinates? You just keep on telling me that the LT transformations give the same result in LET and SR, but if you can not tell me where the primed time coordinates should be read on a simple ether space and time diagram I am not impressed with your statement. 


#101
Dec2212, 05:55 PM

P: 848

Processes involving entangled particles at a distance (not local) simply do not fit that model. LET is inconsistent with that. A fixed ether medium does not work with quantum field theory. However, the block universe model is not at all inconsistent with that. 


#102
Dec2212, 07:29 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,039




#103
Dec2212, 08:26 PM

Mentor
P: 16,951

Regarding impressing you, frankly it isn't a requirement for being right. 


#104
Dec2312, 03:46 AM

P: 126

So there's a contradction in terms. Don't you see that? 


#105
Dec2312, 05:26 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

Red coordinates provide valid account of measured time and distance with rulers and clocks (brought) at rest in that coordinate time. In green coordinate system we have to add specific law in order to predict elapsed time on a moving clock (given we know elapsed time on the same clock when it is brought at rest in green coordinate system). 


#106
Dec2312, 05:44 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

But if you mean that block universe is consistent with QM predictions about entanglement then I would like to see how you arrived at that. Because you see block universe by itself does not tell anything. You have to equip it with physical laws that are consistent with know experimental results. And as you do that you effectively restrict what types of patterns are allowed in your block universe. And you can't model QM predictions using these allowed patterns. 


#107
Dec2312, 05:49 AM

P: 126

Please show me on the ether space and time diagram in which green ether space the red time coordinates are valid! Let me elaborate a bit on my diagram to be sure the message gets across. (It would have been better if I had sketched a loedel diagram in which the time and space units are equal, but I doubt most forum members are familiar with loedel diagrams...). When the green ether observer has 0,5 on his wristwatch, the Red traveler's clock shows 0,433. Red clok runs slow. Red is at planet Q. The distance between the red traveler and event A (light at the star) is O,25. The LT transfomation (event A's time and space coordinates for red) tells us what red observer will experience: at 0,289 on his wristwatch event A (light at the star) is located (3D space distance) at 0,289 from him. How can red's scenario work in the ether? It cannot. Do you perhaps want to replace the content of R4 wit that of content R3? red's wristwatch time indication of event R4? That's impossible: at R4 Red traveler with wristwatch 0,289 is at planet Q and not at planet P. Red's wristwatch on 0,289 is in the green ether through that event R3, but in that ether Red traveler still can not measure the 3D space distance to A. Event A is not (yet) part of that green ether world! The LT result only works in SR: Red traveler has his own 3D world 'in which' he measures 0,289 space dimension between the simultaneous events R3 and A. (You might (but I doubt) get LT to work in a LET context if you question the existence of observer independent events, etc, but then you slide into solipsim or other bizarre philosophical approaches that are not necessary in SR.) 


#108
Dec2312, 05:51 AM

P: 126

How can an observation of a particle, causing the collapse of the wavefunction, have an immediate impact on a simultaneous spacelike event: (the twin 'entangled') particle? LET can not give an answer because you need faster than light communication (even immediate communication!). Hence LET is not compatible with QM. Block Universe solves that problem, because ALL the events, future, spacelike or not, preexist. We only discover them as time goes by. So there has not to travel any information at all beween the entangled particles or events. Causal relationship between entangled particles is not necessary in Block Universe. (In Block universe the events are not 'caused' by (a) previous event(s); the causal relationschip is deducted from discovering a sequence of preexisting events. But QM tells us that apparently (some?) QM events have no causal relationships. Bock universe can deal with that. Not LET (altough a 'Block ether universe' (!) might work, but that's still not compatible with SR.) Block universe does not work with 'probabilities' or collapsing of wavefunctions'. These are only manmade tools to calculate, predict, or 'guess' the future 3D worlds. And because we do not know (yet?) precisely why Block Universe has those 'QM' entangled spacelike events located there where they are, we do our best with the probabilities and wavefunctions to predict which QM events our 3D world will encouter. Bob, I hope I didn't shake too much your QM line of thought with all this? 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Why do some think faster than c= time travel?  Special & General Relativity  11  
Faster than light and time travel  Special & General Relativity  36  
Faster than light and time travel into the past.  Special & General Relativity  1  
Faster than light time travel  Special & General Relativity  40  
Calculating Gravitational Time Dilation in black hole/Future Time Travel  Special & General Relativity  5 