How valid is the Block Universe theory?

[Herman Trivilino]

I naively thought that only quantum mechanics "needed" interpretations.

Rather than need I think it's an issue of desire. When we first encounter quantum theory we want to know the meaning of the main character $\Psi$. But is there a corresponding character in relativity theory that leaves us with the same kind of desire?

 

[Dale]

There is no math in the interpretation! All the math is in the theory. An interpretation is just the way you think about the math when you're doing it.

I disagree with this. I can write the position of a particle as $(x(t),y(t),z(t))$ or $(ct(\lambda),x(\lambda),y(\lambda),z(\lambda))$. This is just math, but the different expressions do naturally lend themselves to different interpretations. Without even labeling them, anyone who is familiar with both can tell which is idiomatic for block-universe and which is idiomatic for Lorentz aether.

 

[sbrothy]

Most of the QM interpretations I've seen does contain and understand mathematics. Any "physical " interpretations of anything which doesn't contain math is suspect in my eyes.

I'd conclude that the author must be either lazy or scientifically inadequate.

 

[sbrothy]

Rather than need I think it's an issue of desire. When we first encounter quantum theory we want to know the meaning of the main character $\Psi$. But is there a corresponding character in relativity theory that leaves us with the same kind of desire?

I realize and sympathize that people have the desire to understand what the "numbers mean" (if anything), and why they are what they are. Just look at the fine structure constant. (Again I'm on this computer where I can't copy/paste. So you have to have a Wiki-walk on your own. ). If anything like that doesn't scream for an explanation I don't know what does. And don't mention the Anthropic Principle. "Don't get me started!".

 

[sbrothy]

Readin Wiki' page on the "fine structure constant" (FSC) turned up this:

Past Rate of Change:

[...] Improved technology at the dawn of 21st century made it possible to probe the value of the FSC at much larger distances and to a much greater accuracy. In 1990, a teamn led by John K. Webb of the University of Great South Wales claimed the first detection of a variation in the FSC. Using the Keck telescopes and a dataset of 128 quasars at redshift 0.5 < z < 3, Webb. el. foudn that thri spectra was consistent with a slight increase in the FSC onver the last 10 -12 billion years. [...]

I'd heard it was possibly changing. then again I don't think the above quote is any proof. Small variations over 10-20 billion years doesn't sound to me as extraordinary.