Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Maybe Relativity Does Have Its Problems, Hey Moronium!


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 04:40 PM

I said I would come back from time to time, but not as frequently, I wrote up something the other day that might interest the ''relativity-naysayers'' as there is actually, a fundamental interpretation problem with the twin paradox and that with time traveling systems.

 

https://timetraveldo...work.quora.com/



#2 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 04:58 PM

I said I would come back from time to time, but not as frequently, I wrote up something the other day that might interest the ''relativity-naysayers'' as there is actually, a fundamental interpretation problem with the twin paradox and that with time traveling systems.

 

https://timetraveldo...work.quora.com/

 

 

 I read it.  I don't accept many of the premises, and I don't even see the logic of the "argument" supposedly being made.

 

That said, I do agree with some of the statements made or implied, for example:

 

1. Time is not just another "dimension of space" which you can "move through."  It doesn't exist as any kind entity at all.  It is purely a mental construct.

 

2.  "If time is not a dimension of space, as Minkowski eagerly implied from the work of Einstein's special relativity and then general, then ''moving through time'' and ''moving through space'' become different things..."  But again you can't "move" through time in any physical sense.

 

3.  Time itself does not change, although the rates at which clocks tick do.

 

Why did you post  this convoluted "essay," Dubbo?


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 04:59 PM.


#3 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:22 PM

I was hoping for a more quick answer that would more or less agree with these things... instead you oppose something you do not mention, but go on to explain points you agree with. As a scientist, I am interested in what you don't agree with. Again, let's keep it short and sweet, because I wish to not spend too much time over the post.



#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:22 PM

For example, what part of the logic do you not understand?



#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:25 PM

For example, what part of the logic do you not understand?

 

 

If you want to keep this simple, you tell me the logic, if you see any.



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:32 PM

If I wrote it that badly, others will agree and I will be forced to come back and explain it all again.

 

 

Read ir again, if you still cannot understand it, I am unsure I could explain it in any other way, it is all forged on relativistic and logically premises.



#7 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:38 PM

Read it again,

 

 

There are many volumes of tedious and interminable discussions and debates between "philosphers of time," who hold PhD's, etc.  Debates about Type A time vs.Type B time, block universes (as she quoted from Einstein to illustrate), etc.

 

They bore me, but it's there.  If I wanted to study other's people's thoughts about the nature of time, I would read them.  But I don't.  And I won't.  I'm certainly not gunna put any big effort into studying this thing you posted.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 05:41 PM.


#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:44 PM

I am not appealing to a PhD analysis, or interminable discussions over the philosophies of time or space... Here is the format for those who do not wish to go through the link:

 

For there to be time dilation without time, the thing we call entropy cannot be time itself. Things can change without reference to time, motion is absolute in this sense. The interpretation of so called ''time'' dilation should be called into question as it is not a true reference to ''moving through time.''

 

Einstein's explanation of time dilation was a literally ''frame differentiation'' in such a way, that you could argue that the relativistic moving body that leaves Earth, say goes to Alpha Centuri in only a few days, would come back and find they have ''moved back in time,'' ie. (time travelled) and we have tended to think this means, we have physically moved through ''time'' differently in such a way, that one clock was slow enough that they now exist in a different time.

 

Einstein would have believed that this ''different time'' existed in a different space - and this is where we come to explain how to solve all the time travelling problems and the issue of paradoxes that arise from them. Well; good arguments exist that the twin paradox, is not really a paradox... but the issue of how a system travels in ''time'' is no more better questioned through bringing up the key subject of whether time is actually a dimension of space!

 

If time is not a dimension of space, as Minkowski eagerly implied from the work of Einstein's special relativity and then general, then ''moving through time'' and ''moving through space'' become different things and I have a thought experiment to show why, a person that travels far from Earth on a rocket, will still come back and they haven't travelled through time at all, but dilation will be result of spatial dilations which affect the rate of change of systems.

 

The Thought Experiment

 

As stated, we often are told of the twin paradox in which one twin leaves to go to a distant system and returns to find everyone has remarkably aged, but something always interested me in this theorem, there was first of all, no paradox [1] and secondly why did Einstein consider this as an experiment that was a thought experiment which involved physics in the far regions of space which is unlikely to be within our technological capabilities for a long time? A simple thought experiment involving a fast Earth-orbiting clock would have sufficed in such a case, but our understanding of the possibility to jump to different frames in time, wouldn't have been as conceivable, which is why I think Einstein first led the physicists on this path.

 

To show why first of all the twin paradox is not really a paradox, I came to believe is key and relevant to understanding why time travel doesn't happen by you ''jumping through'' a symmetry of spacetime to another spacetime, with unique and different positions in those dimensions.

 

As most know, any reference frame is good enough... (except for some exceptions I will talk about later), there is from first principles no preferred reference frame so if a twin travels fast away from Earth, due to the equivalence principles, you can argue that from either frame, you are acceleration or the distant moving subject is accelerating. Just as the passenger in Einstein's train thought experiment demonstrates a person at rest in a moving train could argue the passengers outside are the one's moving. So why did Einstein not take his experiments to the orbits of space and argue the twin experiment in such a way?

 

I knew Einstein was aware that his experiment would be tested for a gravitational dilation in the clock tower of (what was it?) Harvard? Either way, a fast moving, near half the speed of light, orbiting Earth would have been a thought experiment which sufficed his dilation situation and would have leaded to a more rational view of the systematics going on here.

 

1. The observer travelling round Earth is not moving backward in time, because if he was, the reference frame of Earth would have to travel forwards in time.

 

2. Therefore the same happens no matter how far you move from Earth, no one has literally moved through time, because it would actually contradict the order of time in the opposing reference frame.

 

I think based on this, worm holes, the idea we can physically travel through time, have to be abandoned, including this sacred notion of how time and space are [often cited as] ''inextricably linked.'' They are not linked at all, in fact there may be no such thing as time and recently, I have no heavier argument than the one I came to myself. Many forgot, in the twin paradox, that no does actually physically travel forward or backward in time, because it would contradict a more local thought experiment which I hope was clear enough. If not, here is the rough of it:

  1. A relativistically moving observer implies there is a dilation in the change of things not time itself because if it were:
  2. The system would be violating the order of things since in the opposing reference frame there time frame must go backwards and so:
  3. What they really come to agree on, is the amount of time passed in respect to the slow moving frame with the fast since in the ‘’rest frame’’ the time did not go backwards but continued to proceed forward.

Conclusions:

 

Time is a subjective phenomenon from circadian rhythm and has nothing to do with an external dimension that has physical effects in the world. The idea that things ‘’can move through time either faster or slower’’ must be abandoned unless that is, it will be an understanding of this through the relativistic no-preferred frame theorem. In which case, if the internal clocks of a moving system indicate a change, this is an entropy difference and nothing more. It just means, that time dilation needs to be rewritten explicitly as a space dilation only.

 

There are problems though, if time is not fundamental alongside courtship with space, then the beauty of curvature arising manifest observable from the unification that was implied through relativity explaining a wide range of physical and testable theories. I don’t want this beauty to disappear anywhere, I only want my article to show that an interpretation of a relativistic system (does not move through time). No more than we do …. In fact, on online forums I often said to obscure and amateur forums to questions involving ‘’does time travel exist’’ for me to answer ‘’we time travel all the day.’’ I mean it as a joke really - the ability to truly time travel implies itself a specially preserved reference frame, since the frame you moved in would imply either:

  1. You moved back in time
  2. The world around you moved back in time

But someone has to remain stuck in the present moment? Or no one does…. I prefer the latter here, because if someone does stay in the present moment then this would imply someone is capable of moving [that frame of time] from his own, and jump to a different time, in a different location of space, a phenomenon that has been accepted from the unification of space and time itself. This is the true mistake of relativity.

 

Einstein’s Famous Comments

 

…. Upon the death of his friend, he said these words, not to quote, ‘’those who believe in quantum mechanics, knows that the distinction of past, present and future are but stubborn illusions.’’

 

Einstein had a very popular view of time which many people in the lay and prof alike, have tapped into, that is, that the past, present and future, all exist side-by-side … and this statement would have been the true interpretation of relativity, but probably would not have been, if people considered the local orbit thought experiment first, because it would imply neither frame really moves through time. It would mean ultimately, that all systems can ‘’age’’ at different times, but this is nothing but a rate of change, and it is this abstraction, our minds created the false concept of time.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 11 February 2019 - 06:15 PM.


#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:52 PM

So let's see if you can understand this...

 

 

1. A twin goes far from earth, returns and find his twin aged, has he:

 

A) Moved slower in time,

B ) Has Earth moved backwards in time

or

C) Neither

 

The idea that time is malleable comes from the notion that time and space stretches. If only space intervals stretched, the truth of the matter is, is that is all you need to describe the rate at which things change without the need of a time dimension. Let's demonstrate this under more examples:

 

1) A fast near relativistic moving body orbits earth (a clock for ideal purpose)

2) Allow it to be ''moving up there'' at these speeds say until dilation allows there to be a two year difference.

 

We can see that A) above and B ) above no longer make sense, neither frame moved forward or backwards. How do you support this contention, this ''assumption.'' Well, first of all, the local laws cannot be different with distant laws, meaning that no matter how far you travel, it is not through time but instead through space because if it had been through time, the local experiment given would indicate that

 

A) The world on Earth had to go back in time,

or

B )The traveler above has physically moved through time

 

We know both of these are not true because they can differentiate the difference in time, asymptotically on Earth by comparing clocks, but a no-preferred frame could never ultimately say either of them truly traveled through time. They could equally argue both of them did, but this itself would lead to a paradox.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 11 February 2019 - 06:47 PM.


#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:00 PM

If clocks can change without any implicit condition that systems can travel through the dimension of time, then why is this the prevailing idea, that things can physically time travel?

 

Surely no one is actually moving through time in the sense of the dynamic theory of relativity, which Minkowski argued needed to be taken seriously. No doubt the world has.... but has the seriousness of the acceptance led to this idea about the malleable nature of how someone can move forward or backwards in time...

 

...This is really why I brought up the Einstein quote, because he knew better than anyone, his relativity predicted that the past present and future existed all at once.... the reason he accepted this, was because he had to, I think, to please quantum physicists who held to the reversibility of quantum time (though much doubt on this reversibility has been put forward since those years). But there was an even bigger reason... if people were to time travel, if they went into the future, what future did they go into? The relative question, also applied to the past.... so which past did they end up in?

 

As pointed out by Wolf, in his ''Parallel Universes,'' book, if time travel to any past or future was possible, their present states had to be happening now, which is exactly what Einstein was hinting at when he spoke about past present and future... but I think this is the true biggest blunder of relativity.



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:22 PM

If there is no dispute over:

 

1. The observer traveling round Earth is not moving backward in time, (the rate of change of entropy) as a clock has slowed down, because if he was moving back in time, the clock reference on Earth when compared will measure no difference in the sense that ''any time has gone back.''

 

Then I suppose it can be summed up even easier, without all the added detail. No one can travel through time in this case, because the ill-named and understood idea and abstraction of time is only an approximate to the change of things and does not go back in either frames, as in either frame can time move faster forward than allotted, duly to physical laws and parameters. The twin paradox, is not a true paradox, this result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving and as a result of this it seems like a paradox. In a world of change without time, it is no longer a paradox... you can have an array of things which can change in dynamic ways and at different rates, without the need of a concept of time, only absolute change, or relative change. But no one breaks free of asymptotic time, the time and frame of time we all come to agree on, in the sense, no local frame has physically moved through time.



#12 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:26 PM

I also worded this better from the article:

 

''

  1. A relativistically moving observer implies there is a dilation in the change of things not time itself because if it were:
  2. The system would be violating the order of things since in the opposing reference frame there time frame must go backwards and so:
  3. What they really come to agree on, is that the rate of change of those bodies have changed but no one has physically moved through time or they could not compare results physically.''


#13 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 09 March 2019 - 02:28 PM

I just now got around to reading all these subsequent posts, Dubbo, but I can see that you're finally catching onto something.

 

Time does not slow down (a la Minkowski) clocks do, that's all.

 

That's one primary difference between a geometrical interpretation of SR and a preferred frame theory of relative motion.

 

The hypostatization and reification of "time," i.e. treating it as some "thing" that can be stretched, contracted, traveled through (as though it were a path through the woods), etc., is clearly fallacious.

 

There is no paradox about one twin being younger than another.  That's not the paradox.  The paradox only comes from the premises of SR, which says time dilation is reciprocal.  It aint.  So SR has to contradict it's own premises in order to get the right answer in the twin paradox.  Another paradox is that so many people keep affirming that SR is "true" rather than rejecting it, as it rejects itself.

 

The bogus concept of "spacetime" may be useful for mathematical calculations, but it cannot possibly correspond to physical reality.


Edited by Moronium, 09 March 2019 - 02:35 PM.


#14 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 09 March 2019 - 03:25 PM

This is correct:


What they really come to agree on, is that the rate of change of those bodies have changed but no one has physically moved through time or they could not compare results physically.

 

 

But this is not:

 

As most know, any reference frame is good enough... (except for some exceptions I will talk about later), there is from first principles no preferred reference frame so if a twin travels fast away from Earth, due to the equivalence principles, you can argue that from either frame, you are acceleration or the distant moving subject is accelerating. Just as the passenger in Einstein's train thought experiment demonstrates a person at rest in a moving train could argue the passengers outside are the one's moving.

 

 

 

The guy on the train can argue all he wants, but that won't make it true.  You can't have both.  All frames are not equivalent.  That is a postulation of SR which leads to absurd conclusions such as the proposition that time dilation is reciprocal--which SR itself refutes in it's resolution of the twin paradox.  It has also been refuted by experiments such as Hafele-Keating and is refuted millions of times every day the the GPS.

 

The only way to make physical sense of the situation is to adopt a theoretical framework in Newtonian space and time (3 + 1) where simultaneity, motion, and time are all absolute, not relative, i.e. a preferred frame theory as adopted by the GPS and by the explanation of the H-K results


Edited by Moronium, 09 March 2019 - 03:43 PM.


#15 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 10 March 2019 - 06:40 PM

Onto something? I doubt it really, I was trying to do was highlight that things do not actually break free from an agreement of the present moment. This whole idea that a frame of reference can break out of the present moment, is probably wrong, so the idea that things can actually travel through time, reach up in a different time in the past say, is probably wrong.



#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts

Posted 10 March 2019 - 06:41 PM

Time dilation is an example of affecting the rate of change of things because of motion, but there is never a situation in this where anyone ''travels'' through time and ends up in a different location to us on the cosmic map. It's a sort of presentism of experience.



#17 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 March 2019 - 05:56 PM

I also worded this better from the article:

 

1. A relativistically moving observer implies there is a dilation in the change of things not time itself because if it were:

 

2.The system would be violating the order of things since in the opposing reference frame there time frame must go backwards and so:

 

3.What they really come to agree on, is that the rate of change of those bodies have changed but no one has physically moved through time or they could not compare results physically.''

 

You should follow through on the implications of what you're saying here.

 

Such as:  Time itself does not change (as Minkowski tries to claim) but clocks (more generally, the rate at which physical processes occur) slow down (as Lorentz, et al claimed)

 

Although the speed of light is always measured to be c in an inertial frame when relying on distorted instruments of measurement, it is not really c in all such frames.  You can't have both (1) time itself slowing down, and (2) clocks slowing down.  It has to be one or the other for the math to work out right.


Edited by Moronium, 12 March 2019 - 09:43 PM.