Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

special relativity;

  • Please log in to reply
258 replies to this topic

#18 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 11:09 AM

 

The accuracy of the LT has, most decidedly, been empirically confirmed.   The idiosyncratic SR theory, which is only one theory which uses them, has not been proven.

 

 

It has been known by physicists since the time of Einstein, and fully acknowledged by Einstein himself, that a theory of relative motion which posits absolute simultaneity, makes all the same predictions as does SR.  Hence any experiment which is claimed to "confirm" SR also "confirms" Lorentzian theory.

 

That said, what has not been tested, or indeed testable, until relatively recently, is the SR claim that time dilation is reciprocal (which is another way of claiming that simultaneity is relative).  But, with the advent of extremely precise atomic clocks, that proposition has, as an empirical matter, now been disproven.

 

Furthermore, a lorentzian theory, unlike SR, makes accurate predictions with respect to objects moving in ALL frames of reference, both inertial and accelerating.  It is decidedly preferable for that reason alone.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise should look into the matter for themselves.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2018 - 11:16 AM.


#19 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:15 PM

To call it a ''bogus'' subject just tells me you don't seem to understand the relativity of simultaneity. I do admit, many of the explanations, the train thought experiment for instance with the thunder, is difficult for people to conceptualize and arguably leads to silly questions like ''whose frame of reference is correct'' scenario's. It's well known in relativity, that there is no preferred reference frame and so the duration of events are totally relative to each moving observer.

 

This means that no one can actually agree on when events happen in cases which there are no asymptotic observers that can agree on the time of something happening.

 

1.  "....arguably leads to silly questions like ''whose frame of reference is correct."  And why would  that be a "silly question," exactly?

 

A and B both agree that they are moving relative to each other, but:

 

1.  A claims that he is at rest, and hence that B's clock has slowed down and

2.  B claims that he is at rest, and hence that A's clock has slowed down

 

These claims are mutually exclusive.  Since there is relative motion between them, both cannot be "at rest."  One could be at rest, but not both.  Or both could be moving.  Whatever the case, at least one of them is wrong.  It is not "silly" to ask which one is wrong.  What is silly, and yet is often asserted by relativists, is that BOTH are correct.  As an objective (not subjective) matter, both cannot possibly be correct.

 

Even ignoring logic, empirical data shows that, although relatively moving clocks do in fact tick at different rates, it is never the case that each is slower than the other (who knew!!?).   According to SR, the one which has recorded the lapse of less proper time will be the one that was moving (faster).  The question can be answered, so why would it be "silly" to ask it?

 

Sure, they can both think, insist, and swear that they are at rest and that only the other guy is moving, but again, at least one of them MUST be objectively wrong, notwithstanding their respective subjective certainty of their own righteousness.

 

 

2. "This means that no one can actually agree on when events happen in cases which there are no asymptotic observers that can agree on the time of something happening"

 

Of course they can agree, even if their clocks are ticking at different rates.  They only need make the necessary corrections (if any) to the time-keeping pieces.  If you and I agree meet in an hour, I can be there right on time even if my clock runs slow and tells me that only 55 minutes have passed when an accurate watch would record an hour passing.  I just have to know that my clock is running slow and not stubbornly insist that, come hell or high water, my watch is ALWAYS correct.  I show up when it says 55 minutes have passed, and voila!  We arrive at our agreed meeting place simultaneously. We both agree that one hour has passed since we agreed to meet, even if my watch incorrectly indicates otherwise.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2018 - 04:30 PM.


#20 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:39 PM

Clocks aboard objects moving relative to each will never stay synchronized (unless their ticking rates are adjusted and calibrated to match each other, as the GPS clocks are, and do).  But that says nothing about "simultaneity."  Nor does the fact that you are 100 miles away from me and I am driving 50 mph toward you and just left home.  At that rate I will show up at your door in two hours.  We will both agree that I left home "now" (i.e. two hours ago by the time I get to your place). ou won't think that I somehow travelled 100 miles instantaneously and that I just left home the instant you opened your door because that's when you first saw me, eh?

 

I let home when i did, whatever "time" you want to ascribe to it.  That's a stone-cold fact, Jack, and it doesn't require anybody else's "agreement" to make it so.  

 

 

By any standard, I simply left home when I did.  If I think that was 2:00, you think it was 3:00, and some other guy somewhere thinks it was 6:00, that's irrelevant.  I left when I did, and that's a stone-cold fact, Jack, whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not.  Objective truth simply does not require that some "observer" either know it or agree with it.  It stands independent of the subjective notions of any observer.

 

The whole notion that if two people disagree then either (1) neither can be right, or else (2) both are right is ridiculous.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2018 - 05:02 PM.


#21 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 05:45 AM

But both are right, in simultaneity! This is the whole point of having no preferred frame of reference.

 

As I said, clock rates have nothing to do, ontologically, with simultaneity.  Things happen when they do, whether anyone can accurately pinpoint that time, or not.  If two things happened at the same time, they did, know it or not.

 

Insisting that there are no preferred frames (which prominent physicists dispute, btw, see my recent exchange with A-wal in another thread) then requires one to assert the dubious proposition that "simultaneity is relative," not the other way around, as you seem to imply.

 

To "enforce" this fiction, SR then sets up a dictatorial system of thought control where every observer is UNCONDITIONALLY REQUIRED to insist that he, and only he, is "at rest" and to defend this arbitrary claim to his death.

 

Without observers disputing each other, and making diametrically-opposed, mutually exclusive claims of supposed "fact," SR dies on the vine.  But physics is not a subject which relies on the erroneous claims of "observers," as SR does.  Physics is presumed to deal with objective facts, observer-independent, in the "real world," i.e., the world of objective reality, not the world of subjective mental states of misguided "observers."


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2018 - 05:59 AM.


#22 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 06:12 AM

 

Here are three systems. Notice how motion gives rise to different passings of time in different reference frames?

 

https://en.wikipedia...y_Animation.gif

 

These events literally occur for different moving frames of reference due to no less, dilation in the moving frame.

 

I didn't look at the gif you cited, but I'm sure I don't disagree with what it says.  I have already stated that clocks in relatively moving frames, if synchronized, cannot stay synchronized (unless previously re-calibrated) because they tick at different rates.

 

My disagreement is with any positivistic interpretation of this known fact which concludes that "simultaneity is relative."  This does not follow.  Viable theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity also concede this fact regarding clock rates changing with speed, but without making the nonsensical claim that "simultaneity is relative."


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2018 - 06:19 AM.


#23 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:43 PM

Virtually every theoretical physicist on the planet agrees that any definition of simultaneity is "conventional."  This simply means that the adoption of any particular view of simultaneity is a matter of arbitrary, agreed upon, convention, NOT one that is based on testable empirical fact.  Kinda like the length of a yard is arbitrary convention, and not one that has been proven by any empirical facts to be a particularly useful or meaningful as an acceptable unit of length.

 

"Relative simultaneity" is one such possible "convention," and it is adopted by adherents of special relativity.

 

"Absolute simultaneity" is another possible convention, and it is also adopted by many highly qualified physicists.

 

Why pick one over another, if it's all just "arbitrary?"

 

There are many good reasons to prefer a convention of absolute simultaneity over relative simultaneity..  I won't try to list them all here, but they include such things as consistency, simplicity, lack of "paradoxical" implications, superior predictive ability, more expansive scope of permissible application, and meaningful content.  Of course an avoidance of conflict with logic and empirical experience is also a necessary condition when choosing any such convention.

 

Unfortunately, far too many people actually believe that the relativity of simultaneity is a necessary product of empirically "proven" fact, because that is what SR uses and argues for.

 

Fraid not.

 

Among other things, SR must resort to imputed and unreasonable subjective perceptions to/of "observers" in or order to "make it's case" for being adopted as the better "convention."  It is that flaw, it particular, that I am addressing in this thread.

 

At one time, the accepted convention for astronomy was to posit that the earth was motionless and that all other objects in the universe revolved around it.  Astronomy was "geocentric" then.

 

After Galileo precipitated the "copernican revolution" a heliocentric view of planetary motion eventually became the accepted convention. So conventions can and do change, as is deemed desirable.  As a theoretical matter, there is no way to absolutely prove that one is better than the other.  For that matter, there is no way to absolutely prove that any theoretical scientific hypothesis is "correct."  But those abstract theoretical considerations don't, as a practical matter, deter anybody from confidently claiming that the earth revolves around the Sun (the solar barycenter, to be precise), and not vice versa.

 

Every theory must start with some fundamental postulates, and these, by definition, can never be "proven."  They are merely assumed and (at least tentatively) accepted without proof.  It would be nice if we could "prove" our postulates, of course, but we can't, so we do with what we can.  Any given postulate can, in theory, be disproven, but never proven.

 

Here again, the average "believer" in special relativity way too often assumes that it's premises are, and have somehow been proven to be, "correct."  That is unfortunate.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2018 - 03:53 PM.


#24 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 19 April 2018 - 01:58 PM

But why wouldn't simultaneity be a matter of relativity? We do after all find in relativity not all events can be syncronized so it seems it is certainly a part of relativity

  Well, Six, what I'm saying is that simultaneity IS a part of "relativity."  The definition chosen is "conventional," that's all.  Relative simultaneity (posited in SR) and absolute simultaneity (used in RMS and similar theories) are both matters of simultaniety and both are (or can be) a "part of relativity."  So it's really a question of which hypothesis works out better.

 

Suppose a beam of light left a star 10 million light years ago.  If I see it "now" we still say it occurred (left the star) 10 million years ago, even if I don't see it until NOW.  There could be billions of objects in between all of which saw that same beam of light at "different times," ranging from, say 1 hour to 10 million years.

 

The fact that different observers "see" the light at different times does NOT mean it originally left the originating star at any time OTHER than when it did.  That's the idea behind absolute simultaniety.  It's not complicated, and in fact we rely on it every day.  They say, for example, that the Big Bang happened about 13 billion years ago.  That statement is absolute, not relative.

 

Just because the guy on Einstein's train first "sees" the two beams at different times does NOT mean they actually occurred (struck the train) at different times..  When an observer "sees" something does NOT determine when it happened.

 

Today some third grader may learn for the first time, as he's getting on a school bus, that Abe Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.  Even a kid can understand that his cognition of an event does not mean it didn't occur until he learned about it.  He doesn't think Lincoln was shot "simultaneously" with the instant he got on the school bus.  But that's, in effect, what SR does.  The train example pretends that "simultaneity" is strictly subjective ("relative"), and that different events can only coincide (timewise) with each idiosyncratic observer's perception of it.  This is nonsensical, when you think about it.

 

Likewise, the fact that your wristwatch runs fast and mine runs slow does not and cannot change the time at which an event actually occurs.  Your watch may say that a car accident that we both see happened at 9:05 P.M. and mine may say it's only 8:45 P.M, when it happened, for example.  That does not mean the accident occurred at two different times.  It happened when it did, whatever time you ascribe to it.  The time you or I "think" it happened has no influence or effect on the event itself. 

 

But, in effect, relative simultaneity says the opposite.  It tries to claim that whatever time you or I "think" it happened actually IS the time it happened, and that therefore the car accident can "truly" be said to have occurred at an infinite number of "different" times.

 

That is the basic point I'm making in my thread title.  Only an out and out, straight-up, stone cold, fervent solipsist could find that proposition "plausible."  You can only make such a claim by denying that there is any objective reality whatsoever, and by assuming that the only "truth" there is resides in the mental constructs of a subjective observer.  For a solipsist, there simply is no "objective truth."  There is no world "out there."  Every appearance is the product only of an extremely creative and imaginative mind.  There is no "cartesian duality" of mind and matter.  For a solipsist, there is no such thing as "matter" at all.  Everything that "is" is a product of the mind.  Monism reigns, for them.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 04:06 AM.


#25 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 19 April 2018 - 02:55 PM

Because to suggest there is a preferred frame suggests itself the laws of physics do not hold true in every reference frame. Not only do we know the laws of physics as an invariant we learn also there are no preferred frames in existence.

 

But we are not talking about a preferred frame for purposes of applying the laws of physics here.  We are ONLY talking about a preferred frame for purposes of detecting and imputing motion to one (or more) object(s) over another.

 

 

That said, in physics such as Newtonian mechanics, ALL inertial frames are considered to be preferred frames because the laws of physics are "simpler" there, whereas in accelerating frames one must resort to calculating the "fictitious" inertial forces (such as a centrifugal force") which result from motion.  The term "preferred frame" can mean different things in different contexts.

 

With respect to the part of this post where you talk about what a "preferred frame" is, I have already addressed all of that in the post you are responding to.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 08:49 AM.


#26 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 08:46 AM

I can see why you might think that the inertial frame is a preferred frame, but we must take the doctrine of relativity seriously so that you do not botch anything on the way up.  For instance, is there any reason why an inertial frame may not be a preferred frame? Of course, a reference frame for anyone else here, is a standard relative of things at rest or things in motion.

 

 Yes there are lots of good reasons, which I have provided in other threads, not the least of which is the ability to make accurate predictions (such as the GPS does).  I would again refer you to posts I have made quoting the conclusion of Berkeley physics professor (and nobel prize winner) George Smoot, and all the mainstream scientists who agree with him.  If you are not familiar with those conclusions, perhaps you should investigate them, rather than just brazenly assert opposite conclusions.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 08:46 AM.


#27 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 08:57 AM

You don't seem to understand the meaning of ''relative.'' When something is relative, it depends on the frame of reference. The moving frame moves through space at an angle. Events will appear to happen at a different time to someone sitting stationary. Since the physics is true in each case, there is no preferred duration for a frame of reference, it just depends on whether you are in the moving frame or the one at rest. Of course, I must stress again, the word ''rest'' is slightly abused since no object is at true rest relative to anything else.

 

I "understand" the meaning of "relative" perfectly as used in this context.  I just don't agree with the corresponding metaphysical claims that SR purports to derive from that "meaning."  Likewise, I understand the "meaning" of the term solipsism, but it is NOT a metaphysical proposition that I subscribe to.

 

I don't why it is that virtually any time a one person disagrees with another, the person whose position is challenged merely responds with the claim that "you don't understand."  I guess the tacit assumption is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot. 

 

Relying on APPEARANCES only, you just repeat the unproven and nonsensical claim that "is no preferred duration for a frame of reference."  Repetition is not argument, and your "argument" about "how things appear" proves nothing and in no way responds to the points I have made.

 

Your post just ignores everything thing I've said and every explanation I've given. 


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 09:00 AM.


#28 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 09:03 AM

But you don't seem to have understood them. I have given you the reasons why you are wrong. You should learn from it.

  Heh, Six.  I don't mean to be rude or disrespectable, but you have "explained" nothing.  You have merely recited what I deem to be philosophical hogwash which presupposes solipsism as "what's true."


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 09:13 AM.


#29 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 09:08 AM

For instance, you claimed an inertial frame was a preferred frame. I have explained to you why that was wrong and you have no retort except for ''you haven't addressed the things I said.'' In this particular case, I don't need to because I have preferred reference frame myself to point out your errors .

 


 

Wiki disagrees with you, as I do:

 

Although all inertial frames are equivalent under classical mechanics and special relativity, the set of all inertial frames is privileged over non-inertial frames in these theories.  Inertial frames are privileged because they do not have physics whose causes are outside of the system, while non-inertial frames do.

 

  Read more here, if you want:  https://en.wikipedia...Preferred_frame

 

Notice that the claim being made here refers to BOTH classical mechanics AND special relativity.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 09:10 AM.


#30 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:05 AM

A couple of thing worth mentioning, I think:

 

1.  It is not exactly clear exactly what physics "being the same" really means, for one thing. The wiki article I cited on preferred frames said this, for example:

The observable proper physical shape of the bodies remains the same in all frames. The non-rotating-spheroid frame has physics whose cause lies outside the system, responsible for the oblateness of the spheroid. The non-rotating-sphere frame does not, which makes it privileged in that it doesn't require external causes

 

Does that mean the "phsics" are "different?"  If so (and I'm not sure it does) the physics in non-inertial frames are still valid.  They don't have to be "the same" in order to be valid.

 

2. The assertion that physics are the same is merely an unproven postulate of SR.  It does not prove that SR is correct.  It is an assertion.  

 

Another excerpt from  wiki article article pertaining the Mansur-Sexl research.

 

An experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postulate about light concerning one-way speed of light vs. two-way speed of light, it may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz invariance in many different ways. Test theories predicting different experimental results from Einstein's special relativity, are Robertson's test theory (1949),[1] and the Mansouri–Sexl theory (1977)[2] which is equivalent to Robertson's theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia...cial_relativity

 

 

As shown by this article, theories which posit a preferred frame and which violate Lorentz invariance can be just as tenable and compatible with all empirical experiment as is SR.  Here again, the mere fact that the physics might not be considered to be "the same" in all inertial frames in those theories does NOT mean they are invalid.

 

It does nothing to advance or enhance a theory to simply assume it's truth.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 10:14 AM.


#31 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:20 AM

Apparently a post I thought I had previously made didn't show up, so I will repeat it now.

 

Six, if you really want to better understand the issues in question, then I would recommend reviewing the extensive research done by Mansouri and Sexl decades ago.

 

This is a brief excerpt from, and link to, a wiki article which refers to that research:

 

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik LorentzJoseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...cial_relativity



#32 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:53 AM

Here are some excerpts from a very authoritative scientific paper publshed less than a year ago:

Special Relativity (SR), one of the cornerstones of modern physics, assumes that Lorentz Invariance (LI) is a fundamental symmetry of nature....

 

LI violations are predicted by several theoretical frameworks, categorized as kinematical and dynamical frameworks (see [1] for a review). In this paper we use the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl (RMS) kinematical framework [10–13] which contains only three parameters. It assumes the existence of a preferred frame Σ where light propagates rectilinearly and isotropically in free space with constant speed c....

 

The first term of the LI violation in equation (6) varies with a period of one sidereal day as the Earth rotates around its axis. It is therefore possible to bound the LI violating parameter α by looking for daily variations in the relative frequency difference y between remote clocks, located at different longitudes (i.e. different orientation of ~v) and/or different latitude...

 

In conclusion, by using clock comparisons between four optical clocks at NPL (UK), PTB (Germany) and SYRTE (France), linked by a leading-edge optical fiber network, we are able to put a more stringent bound on the LI violating parameter α of the RMS framework. With 1.1 × 10−8 , α is now by around a factor of two better constrained compared to the best previous determination of this parameter, which was obtained with accelerated ions, and by two orders of magnitude with respect to the best constraint previously obtained by comparing atomic clocks.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04426.pdf

 

This paper is quite technical, but, I have seen (what I believe is) this same study summarized in popular journals (I can find a cite later, if anyone wants it).

 

Strictly speaking, SR would say that there can be no difference in clock rates between London and Berlin, because all such time dilation is due to "relative motion" in SR, and there is NO relative motion between London and Berlin (or any other of the cities involved in the study).

 

However, clock rate differences can be detected (and predicted), but ONLY by using extremely precise atomic clocks and employing an RMS model of  motion which relies on an analysis of absolute motion with respect to a preferred frame of reference (the ECI).  This difference is caused by the difference in rotational speed resulting from the fact that the various cities involved in the study are located at different latitudes on the surface of the planet.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 10:56 AM.


#33 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 11:56 AM

Oh I see, your wiki article says the inertial frame is preferred over non-inertial. That is different to saying there is no single inertial frame that is preferred.

 

 

It says exactly what I said, and which you denied, saying I just didn't "understand."

 

My exact words were:

 

That said, in physics such as Newtonian mechanics, ALL inertial frames are considered to be preferred frames because the laws of physics are "simpler" there, whereas in accelerating frames one must resort to calculating the "fictitious" inertial forces (such as a centrifugal force") which result from motion.  The term "preferred frame" can mean different things in different contexts.

 


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 11:58 AM.


#34 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 12:02 PM

But crucially you need to remember, even if the ideal reference frame is an inertial frame over a non-inertial one, the principle still holds in the inertial frame - there is no preferred reference frame, no preferred inertial reference frame for that matter.

  You might want to actually read my posts, and the authorities I cite in them, before giving this kind of response, Six.

 

You simply repeat, ad nausem as FACT, what is merely an unproven hypothetical assertion.

 

You "explain" nothing, you just recite claims you have been told, without even thinking, it seems.

 

I am being generous when I say "unproven."  According to mainstream physicists, the claim that there is no preferred frame has been disproven by the extensive work done by COBE with respect to the CMB.


Edited by Moronium, 20 April 2018 - 12:06 PM.