Is Simultaneity an Illusion?

  1. Jan 21, 2004 #1
    Is Simultaneity an Illusion?

    It is if one agrees with Einstein’s theory of special relativity. It is not if one agrees with Alfred North Whitehead’s contention that we do immediately apprehend the simultaneity of spatially separated events.

    Whitehead’s assertion is based on a desire by most physicists, who need simultaneity of events, which is the same for all human beings at rest relative to each other on the same coordinate system or frame of reference.

    In this universe of ours, we can rightfully make the assertion that simultaneous events does not exist. But we can also make the assertion that simultaneity exists at the singularity of the big bang, which space-time structure is zero. This is the one and only event that can be simultaneous for two parallel universes, two mirrored worlds.

    Since simultaneity only happens once for two mirror-worlds, this implies that the flow of time is bi-directional. One world is growing younger and the other is growing older.

    In these two worlds, they have their own Einstein. One Einstein for one world and one anti-Einstein for the other anti-world.

    The Einstein in one of these two worlds formulated general relativity and made the blunder in assertion that the universe is static until Hubble came along and proved him wrong. But by this time the anti-Einstein in the other have been dead for zillions and zillions of years and his general relativity was correct up to the maximum expansion phase of that universe since it is now undergoing a contracting phase.

    These analogies show the independent character of physical laws, which can only be true for half of the phases of the mirror worlds and not sacrificing their symmetries.

    Simultaneity happens only at time equals zero.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 23, 2004 #2

    My own thoughts on this: if it is humanly (even with computers) impossible to further reduce time, then "simultaneity" must be accepted. What I think can be ascertained is "pre-signals", that which arrives before the standard response. Our sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste are all prime examples that happen everyday. A peach tastes the same before it's in your mouth, it smells the same before it's aroma reaches your nose, it is certainly sitting there before you see or touch it. Simultaneity happens the instant an existing signal comes into the range of perception. Everything has a pre and a post signal, like UV & IR with light, and ELF or ultrasonic with sound. The wonderful part of it is that there are overlaps in our receptors. Seeing the peach will cause the receptors of the nose to anticipate the smell, which will cause the mouth to anticipate the taste, triggering saliva to be released. This can not be duplicated by machine, so science says we are "waiting" for the signal for a moment, and that it is not simultaneous. This is only because their antennae are tuned to receive one signal, or range. This is not the case with organic antennae. For all of our history, man would say lightning stikes the ground. We now know that it never strikes the ground, contrary to ALL experience. The ground "decides" where it wants the bolt to hit, and generates an oppositely charged bolt of it's own and meets the lightning before it hits the ground. Thankfully, technology has advanced to catch a lightning bolt, or follow a waft of smell on it's way to your nose. However, our ignorance is billions of times greater than our knowledge. Science now operates on calculating backwards from our own timeframe to attempt to measure something that vibrates 767,000,000,000,000 times while moving forward in increments of .000000386 of a meter, traveling nearly 300,000,000 meters in 1 second. (and use zero net energy and have infinite mass, yet when "stopped" has x energy and zero mass) Maybe when science has a ruler 3x10^8 long, with 1x10^-9 increments and a reciever on one end and an transmitter on the other they will better understand their invention of "1 second", and not use it to "measure" the timeless (simulaneity). Until then, I will still occasionally taste a peach that has infinite enegry and zero mass (imaginary) and my mouth will simultaneously water and curve upwards at the ends.

  4. Jan 23, 2004 #3
    Empirical Positivist


    They way you describe your senses of the real world can be compared to the thought processes of an empirical positivist.

    This is a person who asserts that what is real is something that can be acquired by the senses through experience and experimentations. And from these acqusitions, he then go on to formulate a law of nature that agrees with his experiments. The science of quantum mechanics was done this way and ultimately it has to forgo certainty and only talk about probability amplitude.

    But Albert Einstein was not this type of theorist. He believe that the external world is independent of our senses. It has its own existence. And this external reality does not give up all her secrets but only the ones that can be detected by our experiences and experiments. Einstein believed that there is more to reality than what we have detected so far. So his theories of special and general relativity are not derived from experiments but postulated by him and then he used them to try to explain something that were detectable by experiments. So far he has been right in his assumptions.

  5. Jan 23, 2004 #4

    I do look wherever necessary to find similar patterns to the problem at hand. I do not agree with the theory that simultaneous action is not possible because I experience the contrary too often, and can find many examples in our world. Sports science has demonstrated this clear enough for me. Ping pong players at world class levels at speeds that do not allow for reaction time. The players must know -before their opponent hits the ball- where to swing their paddle. They are not reading minds, they have conditioned their response through repetition of high order. Once this judgment (of their opponents' likely angle) and the correct counter shot become second nature, you can engage a state of Flow. Fovial vision is being used, and brain waves are down to near rest levels. Your personal time slows down, so to speak, allowing you to do what is impossible for 99% of other humans. This is true in hitting a professional fast ball, or squeezing a trigger between heartbeats, or an indy car driver knowing where an apex to a turn in which he can not see either end of the curve is. To any observer, these things all happen instantly, but to the person doing it, they seem slow.

    At any rate, in measuring, we create a beginning and an end. If your measurement of color ends at violet, when did the ultra-violet value occur? Simultaneous to the end of the measurement, and prior to the last established value. If we are trying to judge the winner of a horse race by determining which one had the most electrons leaning towards the finish line, couldn't we just call it a tie?

  6. Jan 24, 2004 #5
    Sum over Histories


    Your ideas of simultaneity could be similar to the one by the path integral methods of Feynman.

    Simultaneity is indirectly explain by his new quantum mechanics as the sum over histories of all possible paths (probability that one particular path is taken) from a point A to a point B.

    This formalism was the work of Feynman for his doctorate thesis. And became a far better theory than the traditional quantum physics, which uses the Hamiltonian function. Feynman used the Lagrangian. Lagrangian is defined as L = T - V, T is the kinetic energy and V is the potential energy. Hamiltonian is H = T + V.

    The Lagrangian uses the mathematical quantity called the action, which depends on the mass, the velocity, and the distance travelled by a particle.

    The Hamiltonian uses a mathematical quantity that depends on momentum and position of the particle.

  7. Jan 24, 2004 #6
    re-group - Simultaneity in Physics


    I'm not sure whether the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian would be better suited for what I'm doing. My main concern is to eliminate time from the equation, as it is man's device. Let a natural rythym replace it with 1 full cycle. (like atomic "clocks") By modeling the photon on these principals, I have progressed.

    If we have learned that a photon contains all the colors of the rainbow (+/- a few), then white light is the simultaneous combination of them. Or in quarks, where a quark is produced the same instant one is taken away, or destroyed. They can not exist alone, so there can be no time between the creation/destruction of one. Last but not least, again according to accepted laws, the poles of North and South exist simultaneously, they can not exist independent of each other.

    These items suggest, that even in destruction, zero does not have a place in nature. When one value goes down, somewhere in the Universe, a value goes up. Most of the time this happens in very near proximity, but there is no reason to assume that it can't operate at great distances. All energy is conserved this way. All measuring sets arbitrary starting points of when "thing A" begins. The beginning of "thing A" is just as arbitrary, because before it was "thing A', it was "thing Z", and so on. In Buddhism, they say that nothing is "real" that changes into something else with time. Sort of a "Philsophical Constant."

  8. Jan 25, 2004 #7
    Virial Theorem


    If you want to eliminate time from your theory, it is proper to use the virial theorem. Virial theorem is defined as the time averages of potential (V) and kinetic (T) energies. By time averages it can imply constancy in time hence no change to these quantities as time progresses because you are always using some average value, which is true for all time.

    The virial theorem states that T=-V/2 always. The kinetic energy is always equal to negative half of the potential energy. In term of electromagnetic quantities: [tex]LI^2=-CV^2/2[/tex].
    Where L is the inductance, I is the current, C is the capacitance, and V is the voltage.

  9. Jan 25, 2004 #8
    thread coagulation


    Iv'e been noticing that with every post, the 2 separate threads we've been on keep moving towards each other.

    With that I'll segway right into potential mass happens simultaneous to kinetic energy, and potential energy instantly opposing kinetic mass.

    When a photon goes from stable velocity of c, through a transition of deceleration (infra-red), which is unstable, giving readings of "fading wavelengths" (lifespan) and/or increasing mass values that don't fit the rest of the picture (top/bottom quark, etc.) The point here is that during this unstable period, values are un-predictable, measured in "probabilities."

    However, once stabilized, could begin to produce more pattern like vibrating objects with mass (atoms). Without time being involved, speed is also irrelevant, allowing for the final commonality to come forward - vibration. With an "acceleration constant", one could figure the "potential velocity" of an apparently stationary object.
    This should equal the kinetic velocity of light. If you can figure this out, you will have pulled the rabbit from the hat.

  10. Jan 25, 2004 #9
    Correct Descriptions!


    I have to agree with all your descriptions about PE and KE. But in order to pull the rabbit out the hat, we have to first find this hat. This is not an ordinary hat. It contains all the unsolved mysteries of the universe. When we reach into the hat, there is also a chance that we might not come in contact with anything but empty space. Maybe because out hands are too coarse, it scares the rabbit to hide deeper into the abyss. Or we can use a magic carrot to entice bunny to come out instead.

  11. Jan 25, 2004 #10

    .."Or we can use a magic carrot to entice bunny to come out instead."

    How about enticing the coiled cobra from the basket with a magic flute? (except it would be a normal flute, playing the "Mother of all Scales", and the cobra turns into "the path of the photon").

    what about a x r = c^2, or the a/r ratio?

    I think that the photon exists balanced between maximum acceleration and maximum mass (<1).

  12. Jan 26, 2004 #11
    a/r Ratio = frequency Squared


    Science's discoveries take two extreme paths. One path to preservation of life (bunny's path) and one to the destruction of life (cobra's path). It is our choice which one of these paths we must take. History indicates that we did choose both paths at one time or another.

    axr=c^2 introduces or re-introduces the old concept of acceleration.
    But now it can take at least four different formulations that can possibly explain the nature of the four fundamental forces; gravity, electromagnetic force , strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force.

    a/r ratio must introduce a new concept of square of [tex]1/time^2[/tex], which is the same as the square of frequency [tex]f^2[/tex]. This is not defined in our current physics. But it might explain the two directions of time that I am promoting elsewhere.

  13. Jan 26, 2004 #12

    Nice wrap up on the animal analogies.

    I agree exactly with replacing time with freq.^2, they are so similar as to be redundant in the equation. This is where vibration speaks both languages, and can communicate through frequency, wavelength, and time. Charting f and w both in 1 second increments is logical from a timing perspective, but assigns a Planck-like quality to the unit of time known as 1 second, without mathmatical validity. Nature has not been seen to operate in discrete quanta of 1 second. Yet we insist of continuing down this path of most resistance. (nature doesn't do that either)

    On acceleration: as recorded by Newton, the initial rate of gravity is faster than its' peak rate. So, there is a point where acceleration hands off to momentum, as the referee of speed. Does this sound logical? I have been pleasantly surprised by the lack of need to come up with new formulas, most are sitting around somewhere in "another room" of science.

  14. Jan 26, 2004 #13
    Quanta is There


    The way I see it, the quantum of 1 second is equal to a distance of 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers.

    And the ratio of this length to time is always the speed of light.
    This is the speed of light in vacuum.

    When light interacts with matter such as air, water, electrons, its speed become less and less. In some cases, charged particles like electrons can travel faster than light in a transparent medium giving the phenomenon called Cerenkov radiation. This is the optical equivalent of a sonic boom. This radiation was discovered in 1934.

    The formal definition of acceleration is rate of change of velocity with respect to time. If this rate is a constant number not equal to zero then the acceleration exist. If this rate is equal to zero then the acceleration does not exist and the velocity is a constant not equal to zero. Velocity is defined as the rate of change of distance travelled with respect to time. If this rate is zero, then velocity is zero and there is no motion.

    Acceleration is the ratio of length over time^2
    Velocity is the ratio of length over time.

    In order for Newton to formulate his 2nd Law of Motion, F=ma, he has to invent the differential calculus and consequently the formal definition of a derivative. Derivative is defined as the limit of a function as the argument of the function approaches zero. This is also called the infinitesimal calculus. The integral calculus, which is the inverse of the differential was invented by Leibniz, a contemporary of Newton.

    The quantity of acceleration does not appear explicitly in Newton's law of universal gravitation. The force of gravity depended only on mass.

    The force in Newton's 2nd Law of Motion is the inertial force. This force is depended explicitly on acceleration.

    For a long time, it was a mystery why the inertial force (mass) is equal to the gravitational force (mass), until Einstein explained why, using his principle of equivalence in general relativity.

    My outlook on the progress of science is not to question all accepted notions (reinvent the wheel) but to help explain the ones that are not completely accepted by the authorities of science.

    The different attempts of unification of QM and GR are such notions that are not accepted by the authorities and this is where I want to offer my minor contributions.

  15. Jan 26, 2004 #14

    I totally agree with: "My outlook on the progress of science is not to question all accepted notions (reinvent the wheel) but to help explain the ones that are not completely accepted by the authorities of science.
    The different attempts of unification of QM and GR are such notions that are not accepted by the authorities and this is where I want to offer my minor contributions."

    I will try to clarify, when I said "On acceleration: as recorded by Newton, the initial rate of gravity is faster than its' peak rate. So, there is a point where acceleration hands off to momentum, as the referee of speed."
    The initial rate of acceleration of gravity can not be maitained without breaking the speed limit of c. So this gives an acceleration period (32ft/sec/sec), and I'm trying to say that this period is not time dependent, but ratio or interval dependent (with the distance relationship between the two bodies governing)
    This is exactly the same concept as Pauli exclusion, giving an explanation as to why the levels are there.

  16. Jan 26, 2004 #15
    32 ft/sec/sec


    I don't know if you know that the 32ft/sec/sec is a mean value that is used for all school work purposes but not the right value to use even in the calculation of the trajectory of the space shuttle or any missile's path. Because this value changes from place to place and from different altitudes. This is because the density of mass is not the same at any place on the surface of the earth. This variation in density has to be taken into consideration if to minimize the errors introduce into the dynamic of orbital mechanics. That is why NASA uses supercomputer to do the calculations and using numerical approximation methods instead of closed forms of the differential equations. This value is different on the Moon, on Mars. It can only be the same if the mass of the objects are equal even then the shapes have to be the same. It will be different for a ball or an egg even the mass are equal or even for a ball that is hollow.

  17. Jan 26, 2004 #16

    Yes, I understand last post. My question is, if we know the mass of the Earth, and the rate of acceleration of gravity, then what is the ratio that we could then take to another planet or whatever.

    Again, what I seek: for x amount of time, gravity causes acceleration of y, then stabilizes @ c (acceleration then stops, and then we use momentum to relate to mass).

  18. Jan 26, 2004 #17
    mass is found


    Before going to the Moon, the mass of the Moon is already known. Same with Mars or any other planet in the solar system. I don't know exactly how astrophysicists find these values for the mass but I can make a guess that it has to do with the gravitational constant of the sun. This constant is applicable to all planets or moons or asteroids, or comets, or any other intra-solar objects. They use the same equation F=Gm1m2/r^2. G is the gravitational constant of the sun system, m1 is the mass of the sun (found by other methods), m2 is the unknown mass of the planet to be found, and r is the distance from planet to the sun.

    The G is gravity constant of the sun. The g (32 ft/sec/sec) is the rate of acceleration near the earth system. They are not the same constant. as soon as you move away from the earth, let say 200 miles above earth, the value of g is almost zero, at this time G takes over in the equation.

    When you move closer to a planet, the closer you get to it, the stronger the effect of its g. So that when you are within the gravity field of that planet, you have to use its g in the equation. The other g's and G are still there, but their effects become negligible.
    The math method is called theory of perturbation. Perturbations were also used in quantum mechanics. perturbations is really an approximation methods not exact. It uses power series or Taylor's expansion method or any other i don't know about.

    The momentum is inherent in anything that has an inetial mass.

    The momentum increase if the speed of the object increase. If the object is not moving, just sitting there in space, its momentum is zero although its mass does not change at all.

    So if we say that the mass of the universe is infinite but it is not moving then its momentum is still zero.

    For a photon, it has mass of zero and its speed is 300,000 km/s so its momentum is not zero. its momentum is E/c and E=hf.

  19. Jan 26, 2004 #18

    I don't feel like were connecting. Let me try another way.

    During the acceleration period (the interval neccessary to attain speed of light) kinetic energy "consumption" is high and increasing, so kinetic mass is doing the same. This would lead to the assumption that for an object to accelerate to the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass. We know this is not true for the photon.

    Once speed of light is obtained, the acceleration period is over. Now momentum is used to calculate mass. The photon has momentum. The kinetic energy consumption is now at a net of zero (it recylcles its own energy), so the kinetic mass is near zero. This means it should have near infinite potential energy and mass.

    So during acceleration, kinetic values are used, and when particle is stable (in speed), then potential values are used.

    The mechanics behind this appear this way to me:

    the gamma ray agitates the darkness in front of the photon, stirring up micro vibrations. The UV values of the photon continue this process, converting to "grayness", then photon "consumes"/ converts it to light. Ejected behind the photon, is "choppy darkness" (infra-red) which gives heat to cooler bodies in range (thermodynamics) while still vibrating near photon levels, but decreasing.

    At this point, deceleration should be treated the same as acceleration. Kinetic values used, potential values stored.

  20. Jan 26, 2004 #19


    Maybe what's not clear is out precepts. When I discuss, I already have some assumptions in mind, which you are not aware of. I going to list down all precepts that i can possibly use.

    1. Photon has electromagnetic mass, it has momentum equal to E/c. E is the energy equal to hf, h is planck's constant, f is frequency of the photon. c is the speed of light in vacuum. This says that the photon is always moving. The energy of the photon is 100% kinetic and this means its potential energy is zero. This is accepted in physics.
    The electromagnetic mass of the photon can be renamed to kinetic mass.

    2. Nothing else in the universe can attain the speed of light including the expansion of the universe. If there is something going faster than light then we cannot see it anyway so no point talking about something we cannot see. But we can assume that its there in the form of dark matter, which can generate gravity. Dark matter does not give out light or any electromagnetic radiations like gamma rays, x-rays, radio waves, etc.
    Gamma rays are high frequency photons, so is x-rays and radio waves they are all photons. The only difference is their frequency, some high, some very high, some low, and some very low. The photon that make up the visible spectrum has frequency value between gamma and radio. let just say visible light photon is in the middle of the spectrum of EM waves. Although these different photons have different frequency, their speed in empty space is always 300,000 km/s.

    In order to attain the speed of light, an object has to get a lot of energy. Not even the most powerful accelerators (Fermi lab or CERN) can easily do this energy boost for a tiny particle like the proton.
    It would be impossible to accelerate an object the size of an apple using Fermi lab or CERN technologies. Someone someday might find a way to do this but until then it is impossible to accelerate an apple to even half the speed of light. This can be shown very clearly using the equations of special relativity. This is one of the reasons why the superconducting supercollider was never built in Texas. The energy scale needed is too expensive to achieve.

    3. For a closed system, that is energy exchange is zero, the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy is a constant. If the potential decrease, the kinetic must increase and vice versa.
    For an open system like the earth, energy exchange is constantly taking place and the total energy of the earth is not constant.
    The earth is gaining mass every second, so many years from now, maybe billions years from now, the motion of the earth will slow down. Its momentum might remain the same compensated by the increase in mass but lower in speed.

    To be continued.

  21. Jan 26, 2004 #20

    So far, so good.

    I hadn't heard of electromagnetic mass, but the rest is understood.
    All info I have seen just says "photon mass = 0."

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar Discussions: Is Simultaneity an Illusion?
  1. Optical illusion? (Replies: 5)

  2. Wheel illusion (Replies: 9)