Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[omin]

Time Is

what if time, rather than being a real thing used by the universe was just a tool we used to relate events to each other?

reletivity would still stand, as would quantum physics, because in each theory, time is not a fixed element of the universe but is dependent on the frame of refrence of the person making the observations.

All things are real that may be talked about, because in some way they are sensed. Time may not be something not real because we sense time. All things sensed are in some category of existence.

I'm studying specifically the concept time. Time is the symbolic quantified representation of sensed phenomena. Those symbols represents properties of physical things of the universe.

Time is fixed, otherwise time could not be measured or distinguished with the information speed from viewers at different coordinates.

I found a quote of Leibniz in What Is Time, G.J. Whitrow that hints directly at the principle:

Suppose someone asks why did not God create everything a year sooner and that he wants to infer from this that God has done something for which he could have had no reason for doing it when he did rather than at some other time. This inference would be correct if time existed independently of things. For then there would be no reason why things should exist at certain instants and not others, their succession remaining the same.

This quote also implies that time travel is b.s.

 

[quantumdude]

What point does it miss, the one that has been prevailing in a paradigm that is askew, since both QM -as Schrodinger complex wave equation that explains just the behavior of one particle, the electron- and relativity do not talk to each other, as it is said the former is non relativistic?

It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.

Are you really sure there is not a framework that including the findings of both, QM, as per Schrodinger, and relativity equations and even others will solve that great schism we have lived in physics since then?

I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.

Should not a forum like this open its doors to the evolution of the philosophy of science in this sense, so we can have a physical science that not only talks with itself but with the other sciences as well?

I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.

Just some questions about an askew paradigm

What "askew paradigm"?

 

[Chronos]

To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation

 

[Epsilon Pi]

It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.

Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that Newtonian view about an absolute space and time?
If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?
The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.

I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.

What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?

I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.

Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.

What "askew paradigm"?

"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.
[/QUOTE]
Regards
EP
PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

A new complex procedure for coping a complex reality?

Normally the problem physicists have had, even Schrodinger, with its complex wave equation, is that:
"the equation doesn't take into account the spin of the electron", right? but also that:
"The Schrödinger equation suffers from not being relativistically covariant, meaning it does not take into account Einstein's special theory of relativity."
But what about if we have, not a TOE, but a complex mathematical procedure, complex in the sense its starting point is sort of basic unit system concept, based on Euler relation, and with which we can deduce not only the complex Schrodinger wave equation, but those equations of the Lorentz transformation group, in a new context that has at the background the complex plane too?... a procedure that taking the magnetic field as the fundamental field represents it too by that same complex basic unit system concept, having in mind that it has a radical duality represented in its inherent polarity that for sure has to do with its "spin" behavior?
Is it not true that with this procedure we do not have to abandon neither the old SWE, nor those equations that represent special relativity? And on the other hand is it not true that with that certitude represented by the inherent magnetic field and its spin behavior included in that complex symbolic representation we overcome those two problems up?
But additionally we have that the equations of gravitational fields: those of normal planets, and planets such as Mercury and its well-known deviation can also be deduced. Furthermore we have under the same conceptual roof the equation of the pendulum and its approximation factor that can be validated with what is observed, and for which T.S.K. wrote:
"How else are we to account for Galileo's discovery that the bob's period is entirely independent of amplitude, a discovery that the normal science stemming from Galileo had to eradicate and that we are quite unable to document today?"
Best regards
EP

To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation

 

[setAI]

since this forum has hit the fan- I maight as well post my luna-tyk ramblings on the issue:

"Time probably does not "flow"[Motion] in the way we think it does- nor does it even exist in the way we think- [it's likely an abstract proprietary mental model of causality- like color is for electromagnetism ] we think we perceive a constant forward arrow of time- but it seems that time passes differently for different objects- affected by motion/mass- but that is just the tip of the iceberg- there is really no convincing evidence that time flows at all!- I wonder if it is more like we "move" in "time"- in an overall "direction"- but that direction may not be the only direction we can move- like the old mathematical allegory of a two dimensional creature moving in the third dimension- he cannot even begin to understand how he moves- he instead perceives himself as stationary- while the world changes- the idea of Time is very complex and unintuitive even in our conceptual models of it- when you try to find "time" you always end up with nothing but phantoms- we believe in "the past"- but where is it? it does not exist "now"- but we believe it "did" exist "then"- what does that mean?- we know that "the future" does not "yet" exist- so the past and future are both non-existent- so that just leaves us with "now"- but what is "now"? it is an elusive wraith- we think it is an infinitely short "simultaneous" moment- but that makes it non-existent as well!- plus we know that our sense of the present is actually a second or more behind whatever is going on outside our brains- whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, you are right time is a very strange concept, but is it not the great flaw of modern physics to have assimilated time to a space dimension?
Must not time and space be included in a mathematical representation that permits both:
- to couple it to space for the sake of application, but additionally
- to decouple it, as is expressed in the Schrodinger wave equation?
Regards
EP

whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

 

[quantumdude]

Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that Newtonian view about an absolute space and time?

It does.

If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?

The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.

The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and quantum theory, then you are wrong, for the reason I already explained.

What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?

That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.

Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.


"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.

But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?

PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.

I'll remember that if physics ever forgets its founders.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

an incommensurability problem with time and space?

The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.

Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?

But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?

The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.
When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.
And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.

Regards
EP

 

[quantumdude]

Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?

I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.

The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.

But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.

When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.

So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.

It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.

And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.

Precisely.

 

[kurious]

SETAI:
whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

Kurious:
Time is just the number of spatial configurations that occur of an ensemble of small masses in one region of space, divided by the number of spatial configurations that occur of another ensemble of the same number of masses in another region of space -
both these numbers of configurations being counted throughout the evolution of a third ensemble from an initial state into a final state.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

a flaw philosophical conception of reality?

I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.

Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?

But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.

If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.

So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.
It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.

The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.
I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality, instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.
Regards
EP




Precisely.

 

[quantumdude]

Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?

You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is not the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is obvious by inspection.

Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?

If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.

I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?

The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.

I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.

I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality,

But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.

instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.

But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is noobvious by inspection.
t the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!
Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?
Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?

I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?

Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?

I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.

No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?

But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.

No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

My best regards
EP

 

[brodix]

Ep,

All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.
Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame, yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.
Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.
So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction. As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise. All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.

Logic and math are not necessarily synonymous. Without the equilibrium of logic, the reference frame of math has a tendency to start counting angels on the head of a pin.

 

[quantumdude]

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!

You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?

Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?

Yes.

Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?

I have seen Maxwell's equations written in terms of complex numbers. I have also seen them written as tensor equations.

What is your point?

Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?

My remark was in response to your reference to Bergson.

But apart from references to Bergson and Popper, all you have been doing is presenting conjecture and misconceptions.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.

No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?

No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.

No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform.

Relativity is not an "absolute frame of reference".

And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.

Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity?

Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.

Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.

 

[omin]

One Globe, One Time

is it possible for humans to start thinking in terms of a global time;a common refrence point,so that we simply start asking each other "what is the time" instead of "what is the time there".i think it could help if we think different and also if we are to determine the motion of celestial bodies and their effects on where we live.

Off the top of my head, that could be made possible by considering time the same upon the entire surface of the globe and using a speed standard as a reference only. We are used to the concept of time being linked with the visible the position of the sun, our daytime. Without this solar link, we can't imagine the sun easily in the sky of our far off friends during communication.

 

[quantumdude]

Epsilon Pi, it is our policy not to allow the kind of unsubstantiated opinions that you have been airing at Physics Forums. I am going to go through your last post and point out to you all the points that need to be proven.

Please answer the points, and do not respond with more conjecture.

If you respond as you have been, I will be compelled to start issuing warnings to you for posting crackpot material at Physics Forums.

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!

Prove that it is wrong.

I already asked you by what standard you judge a theory or paradigm to be flawed, but you did not answer.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

Prove that the Lorentz transformation can be non-relativistic via the use of complex numbers.

Prove that both "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" can be acccomodated by this new Lorentz transformation.

Prove that the notions of "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" are not contradictory.

Give a reference to the experimental evidence "such as the case of one electron" that demands time decoupled from space.

No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

Present the other framework based on Euler's identity that can "cope reality".

 

[Chronos]

Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?

 

[quantumdude]

All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.

The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.

Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame,

Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.

That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?

Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.

How's that?

So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction.

I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches, atomic clocks, decaying muons, etc...

As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise.

That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.

All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.

Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?

 

[quantumdude]

Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?

I'm pretty sure I know what he's trying to get at.

He has correctly noted that the LT is derived from the postulates of SR as applied to Maxwell's equations. But he has also noted that Maxwell's equations can be written as algebraic equations instead of differential equaitons, which means that he's talking about the Fourier transform: that's where Euler would come into it. He's thinking that, since Maxwell's equations can be written in different forms (differential and algebraic) that a "fourier transformed" Lorentz transformation can be derived in which space and time are decoupled.

If that's what he means, then he is wrong, because a Fourier transform leads to the frequency domain, and it is well-known that the quantity k_μ=(k,ω) is a 4-vector, which transforms in the exact same way as the quantity x_μ=(x,t). So if we look in the frequency domain, we don't lose coupled space and time. Instead we also see coupled wave vectors and frequencies.

 

[kurious]

Space and time can't be decoupled for normal mass:
I think Minkowski said: "who has seen a place that did not occur at a time and a time
(clock) that did not occur at a place".
To violate Lorentz transformations needs faster than light travel.
It is FTL speeds that anyone challenging standard relativity must prove.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?

You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science. From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.

First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point. Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality; there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included, as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.

Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.

Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs. Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.
Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.

And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.

It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case, remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?

No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.

Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.

And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.
Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment? I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity. Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?

It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.

To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,
- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.

I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed. Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!

Best regards
EP
PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

 

[quantumdude]

You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science.

But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.

From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.

Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?

Tom: First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Epsilon Pi: Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point.

Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.

Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality;

Duality between which two concepts, exactly?

there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included,

Again, what is "the third"?

as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.

Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.

Tom: Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Epsilon Pi: If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.

So that means you are not going to present it?

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.

Tom: Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Epsilon Pi: Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs.

It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.

Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.

The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.

Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.

You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.

It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case,

Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.

remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?

This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accommodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.

Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.

You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?

Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity.

You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.

Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?

They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity.

To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,

Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.

- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.

You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.

I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed.

You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!

I wish I could say the same. You did exactly what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.

PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

 

[enigma]

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?

GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space. The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context. Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

I'm afraid you've lost me on that. If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time? Space being the state and time being the motion? Presumably all reference frames are in motion, because they are relative to one another, so there would be no way to determine which might be in motion and which might not be.

That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium. In fact Einstein added the cosmological constant to balance out the effects of gravity, because while he realized the reference frame of space isn't fixed, he assumed there was some more basic equilibrium to the universe. Since then theorists have determined that at the very least, space must be very close to this balance for the universe to be as stable as it is. Omega=1. Yet there is the assumption that this is sheer coincidence and the universe could as easily be collapsing in on itself, or expanding into nothingness.

Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.

How's that?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well and is a counter to the point of reference, otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through. Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field. It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium. As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches,

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them. As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the Earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

atomic clocks, decaying muons,

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

etc...

As in?

That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.

What is our frame of reference? The Earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the Earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.

Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you; Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

regards,

brodix

ps. While our logical processes have much in common with the linear cause and effect process of time, our emotions and politics have much in common with the general level of distributive activity that is temperature.

 

[kurious]

Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello Mr Mattson, as we have entered in sort of vicious circle or in an incommensurability problem I have prepared a paper in pdf, it is about 2OOkb, and the system only permits 56kb, could you please help me in this sense? Thanks
Regards
EP

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thanks Kurious for giving me a hand, but there we have a problem that will not be solved with discussions, as "schools guided by different paradigms are always slightly at cross-purposes"
My best regards
EP

Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I have not denied at any moment the experimental evidence that can be obtained with the Lorentz transformation group, but the way it has been put in a relativistic philosophical framework. In fact one the best things we have from that group is that with them Maxwell's equations remain invariant.
Regards
EP

GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

 

[quantumdude]

Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space.

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.

What?

Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Tom: Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

brodix: I'm afraid you've lost me on that.

Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

and is a counter to the point of reference,

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.

Who presumes what now?

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.

What frame of refernce?

It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium.

What?

When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the Earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

As in?

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What is our frame of reference? The Earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the Earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.

Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you;

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

 

[kurious]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view. You really are the best interpreter of normal science I have ever met, but paraphrasing T.S.K, interpretation presupossed a paradigm, and yours is quite clear, a philosophical conception of reality called relativity, which is part now of normal science, "an enterprise that, as we have seen, aims to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm that is already in existence."
Is not this the reason why what seems to you so obvious is not for others?
In regards to your claiming of evidence regarding my proposal, next week I will look a good site to publish four papers, that I don't pretend will convince you, but my aim is just to share a different point of view in presenting those fundamental equations of physics in a rigorous way, I mean, mathematically but by means of complex numbers, as it were, with the third included; to share them with those all interested in the evolution of philosophy of science, and in another point of view regarding it.
In the meanwhile I thought you might be interested in my paper at my profile, Physics, Edgar Morin and Complex thinking. As an engineer, as scientist, as philosopher my main concern have been always not to be in sort of cocoon but try to understand and see different points of view independently of my own.
My best regards
EP

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

When's the last time you saw a would-be theorist at PF even try to put his ideas on mathematical footing?