Is the Minkowksi/Einstein Block Universe theory science?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Minkowski/Einstein block universe theory, questioning its status as a scientific theory versus a philosophical interpretation. Participants explore the implications of eternalism, the concept of time, and the relationship between mathematics and physical reality, with a focus on the block universe's ability to be falsifiable.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the block universe theory is not falsifiable and should be considered philosophy rather than science.
  • Others suggest that Minkowski's ideas about spacetime emerged from experimental physics, implying a scientific foundation.
  • There is a discussion about how the block universe accounts for the subjective experience of "nows" and what happens to awareness after death.
  • Some participants assert that Minkowski is credited with formulating the Lorentz transform in terms of a unified spacetime, while others contest his role in the development of spacetime postulates.
  • There are references to previous discussions on the topic, indicating a contentious history surrounding the block universe theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the block universe theory is scientific or philosophical, with no consensus reached on its falsifiability or its implications for understanding time and awareness.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of interpreting Minkowski's contributions and the varying perspectives on the relationship between mathematical formulations and physical theories. There are unresolved questions about the implications of the block universe for subjective experience.

Pleonasm
Messages
322
Reaction score
20
Hermann Minkowski (Einsteins math instructor and a mathematical physicist himself):

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
First of all I should like to show how it might be possible, setting out from the accepted mechanics of the present day, along a purely mathematical line of thought, to arrive at changed ideas of space and time...Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics.


It used to be concidered a reasonable inference of spacetime understanding from relativity theory, but is it falsifiable in anyway? There have been strong advocates for decades who since changed their minds and no longer hold the block universe view.

I have a couple of questions for those who still adhere to this theory:

*How does eternalism/block universe theory account for the current stream of "nows" in our lifes, as opposed to those in the past and future. Why is there a special point in spacetime for these particular moments, and what happens to these states of awareness when we die in a subjective, practical sense for the observer?

* Is the block universe theory falsifiable?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Pleonasm said:
How does eternalism/block universe theory account for the current stream of "nows" in our lifes, as opposed to those in the past and future
There are several previous threads on this topic. Most of them ending in a warning or a ban for one or more of the participants. I would encourage you to peruse them first.
Pleonasm said:
Is the block universe theory falsifiable?
It is not falsifiable. It is philosophy (also called an interpretation), not science (meaning not a theory).
 
Dale said:
There are several previous threads on this topic. Most of them ending in a warning or a ban for one or more of the participants. I would encourage you to peruse the first.
It is not falsifiable. It is philosophy (also called an interpretation), not science (meaning not a theory).

Minkowksi seemed to suggest that it was science.
 
No, he said it “sprung from the soil” of science, not that it was science itself.

The block universe is a philosophical interpretation of Minkowski’s spacetime. Lorentz’s aether theory is a different philosophical interpretation of the same math and experimental outcomes.
 
Dale said:
No, he said it “sprung from the soil” of science, not that it was science itself.

The block universe is a philosophical interpretation of Minkowski’s spacetime. Lorentz’s aether theory is a different philosophical interpretation of the same math and experimental outcomes.

Why do you write Minkowski’s spacetime? Minkowksi had nothing to do with the spacetime postulates. He was a mathematical physicist who inferred from the already established relativity theorys.
 
Pleonasm said:
Why do you write Minkowski’s spacetime?
Because you were quoting Minkowski, and because he was the one who cast the Lorentz transform in terms of a unified spacetime
 
Dale said:
Because you were quoting Minkowski, and because he was the one who cast the Lorentz transform in terms of a unified spacetime

Yes, Minkowski is the father of the block universe theory. Einstein first rejected it as a consequence of relativity theory but quickly accepted it as the "inevitable" implications. Minkowski was not however the originator of the spacetime theories.
 
Pleonasm said:
Why do you write Minkowski’s spacetime? Minkowksi had nothing to do with the spacetime postulates. He was a mathematical physicist who inferred from the already established relativity theorys.
It was Minkowski who pointed out that the (still very new and just barely established) theory of special relativity could be formulated as a theory of four-dimensional spacetime. So he gets the credit for that.

The Physics Forums policy on discussions of block universe is here and this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K