I Do AEST (Absolute Euclidean Spacetime) models work?

[name123]

Yes, the topic is a physics theory. So I am discussing it on a physics forum to see if there was a known problem with it. If there isn't then it is of philosophical interest.

 

[martinbn]

Yes, the topic is a physics theory. So I am discussing it on a physics forum to see if there was a known problem with it. If there isn't then it is of philosophical interest.

You have already been given explanations why it (the theory) makes no sense. What more do you need?

 

[vanhees71]

You don't believe, which utter nonsense can get published even in reputable journals. Peer review is the only sensible way to try to avoid this, but it's not fail-safe. There was once an article claiming that the Lienard-Wiechert potentials known for well more than 100 years, were in fact no solutions to Maxwell's equations. I don't understand, how such a claim could be published since it's almost completely impossible that such an established result is wrong after all. A good referee should thus have looked for the error leading to the very probably wrong conclusion of the authors. So it made it to the journal, but it was of course corrected (by J. D. Jackson by the way!), what was wrong: The authors forgot that the retarded time depends on the spatial variables and in calculating the derivatives of the potentials to get the fields and check the Maxwell equations you must of course take this dependence into account, which the authors didn't. So this even happens in journals with high or at least good standards.

Now there are more and more fake journals, where you simply pay for getting published without serious peer review. You can imagine how bad this is and which kind of "work" is published there.

 

[Dale]

So regardless of whether a person writes papers for journals which you count as acceptable, and thus is a presumably trusted author, you seem to be saying that nothing they have written other than what was in the papers in those journals can be quoted.

First, direct quotes should always be specifically attributed. That is completely standard in all scholarly fields, not just here on PF.

Second, authors are not “trusted”. If that were the case then this author would not be trusted. His best work is in low-quality journals, and his opinions from what I have seen are not very well conceived. However, even authors with a track record of highly reputable publications in leading journals write in informal works like pop sci books, which are not acceptable here.

Third, you are just throwing out a bunch of references to see what will stick. You need to critically evaluate your own sources and be more discerning before posting. Being on the Clarivate MJL is a sort of bare minimum for even appearing here. But there are a lot of sources in the MJL that are not very credible.

If you are unsure of the credibility of a source, I recommend looking at Eigenfactor.org ( http://eigenfactor.org/projects/journalRank/journalsearch.php ). Just because you find a reference that is not excluded by our rules doesn't mean that others will universally consider it credible. Physics Essays, in particular, is such a low quality journal that it doesn’t even have an Eigenfactor rating. So although I won’t delete it as a moderator of the forum, but as a scientist I would consider its content with a high degree of skepticism.

The author I was quoting, has written the following papers on this topic, in the following journals that are listed in Clarivate Master

That is not what I was asking. I was asking for the specific sources of the specific quotes and figures that you were spamming.

Edit: after a discussion with the OP the thread is reopened. The deleted messages will remain deleted. The OP now understands the policy and had made an honest mistake in posting the deleted messages.

However, the thread is on a tight leash.

 

[name123]

I have now bought the paper Proper-Time Formulation of Relativistic Dynamics which appeared in a journal listed on Clarivate.

The theory does contain the postulate that: in the absence of gravitation all objects move with a four dimensional Euclidean velocity equal to the speed of light in a vacuum.

Regarding any suggestions that the Euclidean geometry bears nonsensical properties such as nonlocality and non-causality the paper accepts that has been shown with relative Euclidean spacetime. But points out that an absolute Euclidean spacetime does not bear such odd properties

Regarding comments about Proper-Time diagrams perhaps not being able to display light signals, or the amount of information shown in Minkowski diagrams, I have attached 3 figures from the article.

Fig 2. is Proper-Time diagram which also shows the parameter. By convention one object is assumed to be at rest, with its clock therefore showing absolute time. In this case it is particle C.

While some might claim there is no absolute time, there is the concept in Proper Time Physics.
Montanus writes: 'We therefore will restrict ourselves to an absolute Euclidean spacetime (AEST ). It will be clear that the adverb ‘‘absolute’’ should not be seen in the historical meaning of a spacetime where all the clocks run equally fast. Instead, with ‘‘absolute’’ is meant that there is a preferred frame of reference. A clock at rest with respect to this absolute rest frame will run fastest. Its time will be used as a time parameter.'

In this diagram it can be seen that particle A which is a photon moves through parameter time, even though it doesn't move through proper time. Thus using a diagram like Fig 1, one could show a light going out and returning.

Fig 3. is the top down version if you like of Fig 2. And doesn't show the movement through absolute time. And thus such a figure wouldn't be suitable for showing light rebounding as it would all be along the same x axis. It is also worth noting that where particle D appears to have a negative proper time, according to the AEST theory a backwards running proper time of a particle is interpreted as the reversal of intrinsic properties such as charge and spin.

Fig 4. Is a front view of Fig 2, and does show movement through parameter time, and so would be suitable for showing a light beam going out and being reflected back. Montanus comments:
"The projection of the full diagram in Fig. 2 to the diagram in Fig. 4 illuminates why there is a light cone in the Minkowski diagram and a gap outside the light cone. It also illuminates that the trajectories of the objects moving in the AEST at an angle φ and −φ are mapped on the same trajectory in the Minkowski diagram. The present approach makes clear that the Minkowski diagram actually is a space diagram extended with a parameter axis. If one regards (erroneously) the time parameter as the simultaneous fourth coordinate for all the objects, the diagram in Fig. 4 then will be mistaken as a space-time diagram."

I hadn't fully appreciated Dale's comments about the proper spacetime coordinates not being properly defined. And can see now that the approach does not allow one to determine which events are simultaneous in absolute time. Although the lengths in a diagram such as Fig 3 being equal would be necessary, it would not be sufficient. It would require the diagram rotation to be correct, such that the object that by convention was assumed to be at rest with absolute spacetime, was actually at rest with absolute space time for the other coordinates to be correct.

Apologies there for being so slow to understand.

What I am still interested in is whether it does allow the modelling of situations even where gravity is present, using absolute flat Euclidean space time.

 

[Dale]

an absolute Euclidean spacetime does not bear such odd properties … By convention one object is assumed to be at rest

Note that these two statements are incompatible with each other. You cannot have an absolute spacetime and then allow objects to be assumed to be at rest by convention. An absolute spacetime means that being at rest is not a matter of convention. This is further strengthened by the author’s own description of the meaning they attribute to the term.

 

[name123]

Note that these two statements are incompatible with each other. You cannot have an absolute spacetime and then allow objects to be assumed to be at rest by convention. An absolute spacetime means that being at rest is not a matter of convention.

The odd properties comment that was one of the statements was regards to nonlocality and non-causality.

Yes an absolute spacetime means that actually being at rest would not being a matter of convention. But without any experimental way of determining whether an object is at rest in relation to absolute spacetime, those using the model by convention just assume one to be to get the results. To achieve the same results as you would using TR. I don't see any incompatibility there. You could with normal TR hold the view that there did actually exist a preferred frame of reference.

 

[PeterDonis]

It isn't just re-writing the math of standard SR because as you can see from the list of papers above one is called "General relativity in an absolute Euclidean space-time".

The full theory might include some rewriting of the math of standard GR. I don't have access to the paywalled papers so I can only go by what you are posting in this thread and the abstracts I can read. My opinion based on those is that it is re-writing standard math plus physical claims that are just the author's unsupported opinion and cannot be justified by the math.

The author I was quoting, has written the following papers

Most of these links just go to the author's profile on researchgate (which, btw, is one of those sites that is notorious for posting low quality papers).

 

[robphy]

Yes, the topic is a physics theory. So I am discussing it on a physics forum to see if there was a known problem with it. If there isn't then it is of philosophical interest.

I have now bought the paper Proper-Time Formulation of Relativistic Dynamics which appeared in a journal listed on Clarivate.

From a google search of similarly titled papers by the author, some troubling phrases occurred.
Since you have access to the paper under discussion,
can transcribe (a quote, not a paraphrase) sentences and formulas referring to the "mass of the photon"?

It seems to me that this author's approach has a nonzero "mass of the photon", which is at odds with our current understanding.

 

[name123]

From a google search of similarly titled papers by the author, some troubling phrases occurred.
Since you have access to the paper under discussion,
can transcribe (a quote, not a paraphrase) sentences and formulas referring to the "mass of the photon"?

It seems to me that this author's approach has a nonzero "mass of the photon", which is at odds with our current understanding.

The mass of a photon is referred to quite often. I've private messaged you.

 

[robphy]

The mass of a photon is referred to quite often. I've private messaged you.

Because of this, I feel that this (and possibly other conclusions)
would classify this as a non-mainstream theory.

TL;DR Summary: My question is, does the AEST approach work, while preserving proper time momentum, and flat Euclidean spacetime (even with gravity), or are there problems with it?

So, as I am sure other earlier responses have suggested, there are problems with it.
So, I think this question has been answered.

While aspects of it may be of interest,
I do not think this Special and General Relativity forum is the appropriate place to continue an extended discussion on it and its many facets.It may be appropriate to discuss one clearly-defined issue at a time,
but not a whole set of issues arising from a non-mainstream theory.

This is just my opinion... but I came to PhysicsForums because I wanted to focus on mainstream physics.

 

[Dale]

I don't see any incompatibility there

That is more of a problem than anything else.

You have had several problems pointed out. And with a handwaving “absolute spacetime solves all of my problems” (I am not convinced on that point) you march on and use relative spacetime when it suits.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you have a relative spacetime with all of the acknowledged problems and you can adopt a convention of rest or you have an absolute spacetime and you cannot adopt a convention of rest (even if the absolute spacetime doesn’t solve the acknowledged problems)

But without any experimental way of determining whether an object is at rest in relation to absolute spacetime, those using the model by convention just assume one to be to get the results.

And this really doesn’t work. Since you cannot know which is the absolute frame but since only the absolute frame supposedly fixes the problems then you can never know if you have fixed the problems.

The foundations of this approach are shaky and full of holes.

Can you explain how the absolute frame supposedly fixes all of the problems identified above? I remain very skeptical

 

[Dale]

It seems to me that this author's approach has a nonzero "mass of the photon", which is at odds with our current understanding

And at odds with current experimental evidence.

 

[Dale]

For a point of organization, let’s leave off the photon mass discussion, and focus on the “Euclidean spacetime” (space-proper time) issues. The community has identified the following problems with the space-propertime approach:

1) the points are not themselves physically meaningful

2) worldlines intersecting doesn’t imply nearby objects and vice versa

3) causes can come after effects

4) light rays retrace themselves making a light clock essentially impossible to analyze

5) the concept doesn’t even apply for light rays since it gives a division by zero

6) (did I miss any?)

It is claimed that “absolute” Euclidean spacetime somehow solves those problems. How? I really don’t see it.

 

[robphy]

For a point of organization, let’s leave off the photon mass discussion, and focus on the “Euclidean spacetime” (space-proper time) issues.

Possibly useful: a very-old thread where the author is referenced in #4, #8, and later https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wheres-the-catch.151075/

 

[name123]

For a point of organization, let’s leave off the photon mass discussion, and focus on the “Euclidean spacetime” (space-proper time) issues. The community has identified the following problems with the space-propertime approach:

1) the points are not themselves physically meaningful

2) worldlines intersecting doesn’t imply nearby objects and vice versa

3) causes can come after effects

4) light rays retrace themselves making a light clock essentially impossible to analyze

5) the concept doesn’t even apply for light rays since it gives a division by zero

6) (did I miss any?)

It is claimed that “absolute” Euclidean spacetime somehow solves those problems. How? I really don’t see it.

1) The points do make it meaningful that there is a physical distinction between proper time and the time parameter in the model, even if it isn't possible to establish what is at rest in absolute spacetime. Thus a photon would be thought to move in absolute time, but not in proper time.

2) World lines intersecting in which Fig that I supplied?
In Fig 2 they would imply being in exactly the same parameter time at the point of intersection, and there would be 0 spacetime distance.
If Fig 3 the line length will tell you whether they are at the same point in parameter time, and they would be 0 spatial distance I think, though there could be a distance in proper time.
In Fig 4, the Minkowski diagram, they would be at exactly the same parameter time, and there would be be 0 spatial distance, but you couldn't tell by looking whether there was any distance in proper time.

3) The paper explicitly denies this is the case. But please explain how that is so given that the angle can't be larger than 90 degrees, or rather if it is then in AEST theory (but not I guess in relative Euclidean geometry), as I mentioned, a particle is interpreted as the reversal of intrinsic properties such as charge and spin.

4) Light rays would only appear to retrace themselves in Fig 3 because their movement in parameter time is not shown. That would not be the case for Fig 2 or Fig 4.

5) What concept doesn't even apply for light rays?

 

[Vanadium 50]

one journal, Physics Essays. How high is it ranked?

A favorite of crackpots. I imagine they rank it highly. The rest of us, not so much.

 

[Dale]

The points do make it meaningful that there is a physical distinction between proper time and the time parameter in the model

There is already a distinction between coordinate time and proper time. That is not relevant.

The issue is that the space-propertime diagram is composed of points that have no physical meaning. If you dispute this then kindly write down the physical meaning of the points. What distinguishes one point in space propertime from another?

Physically different points in spacetime represent things that happened at different times (physically measured with clocks) or different places (physically measured with rulers). It is a clear physical meaning. There is no similar interpretation for space propertime that I know. Two different points in space propertime can happen at the same time and place.

World lines intersecting in which Fig that I supplied?

E.g. in the figure that @Ibix supplied.

But please explain how that is so given that the angle can't be larger than 90 degrees

Look at the diagram by @Ibix The points where the two traveling twins meet the home twin are the same event. A signal from the “later” one could be sent to the “earlier” one.

Light rays would only appear to retrace themselves in Fig 3 because their movement in parameter time is not shown

Once you include coordinate time as an axis, the diagram is no longer Euclidean.

What concept doesn't even apply for light rays?

The foundational idea that all objects travel through space propertime at $c$.

Anyway, it is becoming clear that you are not interested in learning what is wrong with this concept. You simply want to promote it.

I see little value in continuing this thread. Your stated question has been answered.

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

Two different points in space propertime can happen at the same time and place.

As @Ibix already showed, an example for this can be seen in the Epstein diagram of the twin paradox. When the twins meet again, $A$ has aged by 26 years and $B$ only by 10 year. Therefore, they are shown at different points on the $\tau$ axis.

Source (see points A and B):
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c7_en

 

[name123]

There is already a distinction between coordinate time and proper time. That is not relevant.

So photons don't move through proper time in TR?

I thought Montanus was pointing out that in the Minkowski Diagram (Fig 4 attachment #55) the time is actually the parameter time, and in TR that is proper time I thought. And I thought the photons did move in that time in TR. If that is so then that is a clear physical difference between the two models, and why I guess Montanus was pointing out that people in TR had mistaken it for a spacetime diagram.

The issue is that the space-propertime diagram is composed of points that have no physical meaning. If you dispute this then kindly write down the physical meaning of the points. What distinguishes one point in space propertime from another?

Physically different points in spacetime represent things that happened at different times (physically measured with clocks) or different places (physically measured with rulers). It is a clear physical meaning. There is no similar interpretation for space propertime that I know. Two different points in space propertime can happen at the same time and place.

I was under the impression that the different points in spacetime represent things that happened at different time (measured by clocks), or different places (physically measured with rulers).

A bit like with Newtonian physics. Where space and time were considered absolute. There was still the issue of a frame of reference with space. And there is still that issue with a frame of reference for space with space-propertime. I was under the impression that the difference with Newtonian physics and space-propertime was that the clocks could not be expected to all tick at the same rate. The rate at which the clocks would tick would depend on the velocity in space, since as mentioned the theory does contain the postulate that: in the absence of gravitation all objects move with a four dimensional Euclidean velocity equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. Thus the more one moves in the space dimensions, the less one will be moving in the proper time dimension. And that will be reflected in the time that one clock ticks compared to another.

E.g. in the figure that @Ibix supplied.

Look at the diagram by @Ibix The points where the two traveling twins meet the home twin are the same event. A signal from the “later” one could be sent to the “earlier” one.

Once you include coordinate time as an axis, the diagram is no longer Euclidean.

The foundational idea that all objects travel through space propertime at $c$.

It seems to me that you have misunderstood the diagram. But I realise it could be me that is having a problem understanding what you are saying.

If you look at the diagrams I supplied in #55. The diagram supplied by @Ibix is a Fig 3 type diagram. But look at a Fig 2 type and imagine that type of diagram of it. It would be clear that the when the twins meet back up it is at the same parameter time. One wasn't earlier. What the difference in proper time in Fig 3 type diagram represents is that the proper time of one twin is different to the proper time of the other. That their proper times are different isn't a causality issue.

Anyway, it is becoming clear that you are not interested in learning what is wrong with this concept. You simply want to promote it.

I see little value in continuing this thread. Your stated question has been answered.

Seems strange you would say that when I answered each thing you wrote.

 

[PeterDonis]

So photons don't move through proper time in TR?

In standard relativity, the concept of "proper time" is not even applicable to photons. Lightlike objects are fundamentally different physically from timelike objects. The concept of "proper time" is only applicable to timelike objects.

I thought Montanus was pointing out that in the Minkowski Diagram (Fig 4 attachment #55) the time is actually the parameter time

It is coordinate time in whatever inertial frame the diagram is being drawn.

in TR that is proper time I thought.

No. Coordinate time is not the same as proper time in standard relativity.

It appears that not only do you not understand AEST, you also don't understand standard relativity.

And I thought the photons did move in that time in TR.

In any inertial frame, points on a photon's worldline map one-to-one with values of coordinate time. But, as above, coordinate time is not the same as proper time, and the concept of "proper time" is not even applicable to photons.

I was under the impression that the different points in spacetime represent things that happened at different time (measured by clocks), or different places (physically measured with rulers).

That's true, but it's beside the point. If two worldlines in spacetime meet at a single point, that means those two objects physically met each other. But if two "worldlines" in space-propertime meet at a single point, that tells you nothing physically at all. That's the objection @Dale was making. You have not answered it.

when the twins meet back up it is at the same parameter time.

The same coordinate time in any inertial frame. Or, more important, the same point in spacetime.

What the difference in proper time in Fig 3 type diagram represents is that the proper time of one twin is different to the proper time of the other. That their proper times are different isn't a causality issue.

No, but it is an issue for space-propertime, since it means a single physical event--the two twins meeting up again--is not represented by a single point in space-propertime. This is one illustration of the fact, already mentioned, that points in space-propertime have no physical meaning, unlike points in spacetime.

Seems strange you would say that when I answered each thing you wrote.

No, you haven't. You have answered nothing whatever. See above.

 

[PeroK]

It appears that not only do you not understand AEST, you also don't understand standard relativity.

This was evident in the long, painful thread on the Hafele-Keating experiment:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hafele-keating-experiment.1007512/

 

[name123]

In standard relativity, the concept of "proper time" is not even applicable to photons. Lightlike objects are fundamentally different physically from timelike objects. The concept of "proper time" is only applicable to timelike objects.

Ok, well there is a difference there then. In AEST proper time is applicable to photons. It is just that they don't move through it. And I assume in AEST there is no distinction between lightlike objects and timelike objects. And that there is no need to perform the operation you did in

[PeterDonis didn't write this, just not sure how else to provide link to post]

It is coordinate time in whatever inertial frame the diagram is being drawn.

I think that was what Montanus was considering a mistake that has taken place in TR. That from the diagrams I supplied in #55 you can see where the Minkowski diagram comes from. I'll just requote what his thoughts on it were.

"The projection of the full diagram in Fig. 2 to the diagram in Fig. 4 illuminates why there is a light cone in the Minkowski diagram and a gap outside the light cone. It also illuminates that the trajectories of the objects moving in the AEST at an angle φ and −φ are mapped on the same trajectory in the Minkowski diagram. The present approach makes clear that the Minkowski diagram actually is a space diagram extended with a parameter axis. If one regards (erroneously) the time parameter as the simultaneous
fourth coordinate for all the objects, the diagram in Fig. 4 then will be mistaken as a space-time diagram. Unfortunately this is the situation in the TR. Together with the aforementioned inconsistent definition of distances it leads to an illogical and contradictive model for spacetime."

But you seem to be stating that in TR when establishing the coordinate time of an observed object in a different frame of reference, the proper time of the observer is not a parameter. And therefore he is wrong to think that the Minkowski diagram is actually a space diagram extended with a parameter axis.

That's true, but it's beside the point. If two worldlines in spacetime meet at a single point, that means those two objects physically met each other. But if two "worldlines" in space-propertime meet at a single point, that tells you nothing physically at all. That's the objection @Dale was making. You have not answered it.

I thought I gave quite an extensive answer, which evolved explaining that the information it gave depended on what type of diagram the worldline was in. And explained the difference whether it was a Fig 2 type, Fig 3 type, of Fig 4 (Minkowski) type.

Regarding the Fig 3 type explanation you even wrote:

No, but it is an issue for space-propertime, since it means a single physical event--the two twins meeting up again--is not represented by a single point in space-propertime. This is one illustration of the fact, already mentioned, that points in space-propertime have no physical meaning, unlike points in spacetime.

Ok, it seems to me that space-propertime is compatible at least with a past present future conception of time (I actually cannot see how else to view it without considering it to have 5 dimensions, but that might just be me). If so then the 4D Euclidean spacetime replaces the 3D Euclidean space of Newtonian physics. And thus for any point in parameter time, if two entities have the same space coordinates they will have met up. But, in the 4D Euclidean spacetime used, it wouldn't be a point like in the 3D space used in Newtonian physics, as there is an extra dimension, propertime. And so in the 4D Euclidean spacetime it would be a line. A line on which all points have the same space coordinates, but which have different propertime coordinates. As people could meet up with a range of different values on their clocks. And going further, it also seems to me as a layperson, propertime seems to reflect the idea of clocks slowing down when they move relative to absolute spacetime.

 

[Dale]

Seems strange you would say that when I answered each thing you wrote.

You still have not addressed my key point from my very first post which I have repeated multiple times. If you were interested in learning you would try it, but you are interested in pushing your concept.

Please provide a physical description of what physically distinguishes two points in space-propertime. What is the physical meaning of points in such a diagram?

Spacetime has physical meaning, space propertime does not. You are arguing without learning.

So photons don't move through proper time in TR?

Proper time is not defined on a null worldline. Instead an affine parameter must be used.

If you look at the diagrams I supplied in #55. The diagram supplied by @Ibix is a Fig 3 type diagram. But look at a Fig 2 type and imagine that type of diagram of it. It would be clear that the when the twins meet back up it is at the same parameter time.

See, here you are just making a weak argument rather than saying "oh yes, that is a problem". A space-propertime diagram, as shown by @Ibix, is very problematic. We tell you it is problematic and your response is not to say "yes it is problematic" but to say "well a different kind of diagram is not problematic". Pointing to a spacetime-propertime diagram doesn't fix a space-propertime diagram. It tacitly acknowledges the problem. If a space-propertime diagram worked then why would they need to introduce a spacetime-propertime diagram?

The issue is that a space-propertime diagram is very unnatural and non-physical. As I mentioned above and which you still have not addressed there is no physical meaning to the points in a space-propertime diagram. The points in a spacetime diagram have a physical meaning and the worldline parameters also have a physical meaning in spacetime.

It makes no sense to treat the parameters as a coordinate. For one, each worldline has its own parameter, that is why we can use proper time for timelike worldlines and an affine parameter for lightlike worldlines. For two, that parameter is only defined along that worldline, so it doesn't make sense to treat it as though it were defined elsewhere. It is inherently problematic to represent proper time as it is represented in a space propertime diagram.

The paper explicitly denies this is the case. But please explain how that is so given that the angle can't be larger than 90 degrees

Here is the issue. See the annotated diagram. Points A, B, and C are the same event. That is the first collision/reunion event. A pulse of light emitted at point D can affect points A, B, and C. So it is clear that in this presentation effects (A) can precede causes (D). Remember, worldlines in a space-propertime diagram don't have to intersect to actually be at the same place and time, so the fact that lightlike lines go at 90 degrees has no bearing on whether or not effects can precede the cause.

 

[A.T.]

It isn't just re-writing the math of standard SR because as you can see from the list of papers above one is called "General relativity in an absolute Euclidean space-time". And it uses flat Euclidean geometry even in situations with gravitation, and has the concept of absolute time.

The way Carroll L. Epstein introduces it (here is the book online version), it is definitely just a different geometrical interpretation of the same SR & GR math. Basically a different type of diagram showing some things that a Minkowski-Diagram doesn't, but also missing some things.

 

[A.T.]

Physically different points in spacetime represent things that happened at different times (physically measured with clocks) or different places (physically measured with rulers). It is a clear physical meaning. There is no similar interpretation for space propertime that I know. Two different points in space propertime can happen at the same time and place.

Different types of diagrams have different interpretations for elements in them. In classical physics we use different diagrams too: time-position, time-velocity, position-velocity, ... Nobody is expecting that all diagram elements like points, path lengths or path crossings have the same physical meaning in all of them, or are equally meaningfull.

 

[Dale]

Nobody is expecting that all diagram elements like points, path lengths or path crossings have the same physical meaning in all of them, or are equally meaningfull.

Yes, the graphical elements of different diagrams have different meanings, that is in fact the concept I am trying to convey. It seems that the OP does expect that the points in a space-propertime diagram are physically meaningful, despite my harping on this issue non-stop.

 

[Dale]

Ok, it seems to me that space-propertime is compatible at least with a past present future conception of time

It does not. The past present future organization is discarded as I showed above in the annotated version of @Ibix 's diagram.

going further, it also seems to me as a layperson, propertime seems to reflect the idea of clocks slowing down

It does indeed do this, but that is all it does. That is why we are showing other examples of things it does not do. If you want to claim that something "works" then you probably need to specify what you claim it works for. As a general model of physics, it does not work. As a nice graphical indicator of time dilation it does work, and that is about it.

And thus for any point in parameter time, if two entities have the same space coordinates they will have met up

And as soon as you introduce SR's coordinate time $t$ then you are no longer using a space-propertime diagram and no longer using a Euclidean metric. In order to make the space-propertime diagram work for more than just time dilation you have to augment it with coordinate time. It is then no longer Euclidean and it is no longer space-propertime. The need to do this shows the stringent inherent limitations that you have yet to acknowledge about a space-propertime diagram.

 

[A.T.]

Yes, the graphical elements of different diagrams have different meanings, that is in fact the concept I am trying to convey. It seems that the OP does expect that the points in a space-propertime diagram are physically meaningful, despite my harping on this issue non-stop.

Okay, clarifying this is important. But I don't see it as an argument against using space-propertime diagrams, along with space-coordinatetime diagrams. Some diagram elements are more meaningful in a space-propertime diagram, where the path length is the coordiante-time interval. In a space-coordiantetime diagram the path length has no directly interpretable meaning, and you need additional math to compute the proper-time interval from it.

 

[robphy]

Okay, clarifying this is important. But I don't see it as an argument against using space-propertime diagrams, along with space-coordinatetime diagrams. Some diagram elements are more meaningful in a space-propertime diagram, where the path length is the coordiante-time interval. In a space-coordiantetime diagram the path length has no directly interpretable meaning, and you need additional math to compute the proper-time interval from it.

Bolding above by me.
Sure, one can have supplementary drawings and plots (like space-propertime or space-space or whateverElse-whateverElse2).
But
one cannot dispense with the Minkowski spacetime diagram (with its Minkowskian spacetime geometry) for special relativity, as these many alternative approaches attempt to do.

 

[Dale]

I don't see it as an argument against using space-propertime diagrams, along with space-coordinatetime diagrams

Nor do I. It is fine to use space-propertime diagrams for what they are useful for.

They are not useful as a Euclidean spacetime to replace standard Minkowski spacetime. Space-propertime is not simply a Euclidean spacetime. This thread is about whether or not “Euclidean spacetime” works. The OP and his favorite author don’t want to just use space-propertime diagrams for what they are useful for, but rather as a Euclidean replacement for spacetime. The point I am making about the points is crucial for understanding why that overly ambitious goal doesn’t work.

 

[PeterDonis]

In AEST proper time is applicable to photons. It is just that they don't move through it.

And this means that points in space-propertime can't have any physical meaning for light, any more than they do for timelike objects.

I assume in AEST there is no distinction between lightlike objects and timelike objects.

First, you shouldn't assume. You should know. If you don't know even something as basic as that about AEST, what's the point of this thread? Aren't you just wasting everyone's time?

Second, the distinction between lightlike and timelike objects is a physical distinction. You can observe it in experiments. One obvious observation is that you can't change your speed relative to a lightlike object: if you accelerate towards it, it doesn't slow down relative to you, as a timelike object does, it blueshifts. Any theory that does not capture this obvious physical difference is just wrong.

And that there is no need to perform the operation you did in

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I think that was what Montanus was considering a mistake that has taken place in TR.

Montanus' claim that there is a mistake in standard relativity is one of the main reasons why he is considered a crackpot. The standard spacetime model of relativity makes precise quantitative predictions about experimental results that have been verified to many decimal places. That includes the parts of the model that Montanus claims contain a "mistake".

I'll just requote what his thoughts on it were.

Montanus' thoughts here look like word salad to me. He is trying to claim that standard spacetime diagrams in flat Minkowski spacetime are somehow invalid. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Again, the fact that he makes such claims with apparent seriousness is one of the main reasons why he is considered a crackpot. It's as if he were to claim that standard arithmetic is somehow wrong because mathematical objects like 1, 2, and 3 actually aren't valid numbers.

you seem to be stating that in TR when establishing the coordinate time of an observed object in a different frame of reference, the proper time of the observer is not a parameter.

Your statement here doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as "the coordinate time of an observed object". Coordinate times belong to events, not objects.

As for transforming the coordinates of events from one inertial frame to another, it should be obvious from the Lorentz transformation equations that "proper time" is not a parameter in such transformations.

I thought I gave quite an extensive answer

You thought wrong. That's because, as I have already stated, you do not appear to have a good understanding either of AEST or of standard SR. Which, again, makes me wonder if this whole thread is not a waste of time. Maybe Montanus himself could come here and at least give some kind of substantive response to the concerns being raised (though from what I've read so far of what he wrote, I doubt it). But he's not posting here, you are, and it certainly doesn't seem like you can. So what's the point?

it seems to me that space-propertime is compatible at least with a past present future conception of time (I actually cannot see how else to view it without considering it to have 5 dimensions, but that might just be me). If so then the 4D Euclidean spacetime replaces the 3D Euclidean space of Newtonian physics. And thus for any point in parameter time, if two entities have the same space coordinates they will have met up. But, in the 4D Euclidean spacetime used, it wouldn't be a point like in the 3D space used in Newtonian physics, as there is an extra dimension, propertime. And so in the 4D Euclidean spacetime it would be a line. A line on which all points have the same space coordinates, but which have different propertime coordinates. As people could meet up with a range of different values on their clocks. And going further, it also seems to me as a layperson, propertime seems to reflect the idea of clocks slowing down when they move relative to absolute spacetime.

All of this looks like word salad to me.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

After moderator discussion, this thread will remain closed. The OP question has been addressed. Thanks to all who participated!