Does Space-Time Mediate Relativity?

[PerfectLiquid]

Since the development of the concepts of space-time and relativity, primarily by Einstein, we find that natural philosophy has been largely defined by a series of mathematical equations. While such quantitative descriptions have proven to be remarkably accurate and precise (especially QED), there has been a drift away from mechanistic physical descriptions of nature and towards increasingly abstract formulations. While Einstein, among others, was involved in starting this trend, he became increasingly concerned that the study of physics was abandoning the pursuit of fundamental mechanisms in favor of statistical descriptions such as quantum mechanics. Although he conceded that such approaches could readily account for experimental results, he expressed the view:

"Some physicists, among them myself, can not believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance." [The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics, Address before the Eighth American Scientific Congress, Washington, May 15, 1940; published in Science, vol 91, May 1940].

 

The challenge of this thread is to consider whether it is possible to mount a return to fundamental descriptions of what nature is, versus how nature acts. As the title suggests, can space-time be physically described in substantive terms that reasonably account for the properties of relativity? This query stands in contrast to certain basic assumptions that underlie quantum mechanics (i.e., that we will be unable to characterize the elements of nature responsible for the behaviors that are observed).

 

Regards,

Al

[modest]

Would you say that the issue is with locality?

 

Wiki's commentary on the formalism of the Lorentz transformations:

However, this is not necessarily the starting point: indeed (as is exposed, for example, in the second volume of the Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz), what is really at stake is the locality of interactions: one supposes that the influence that one particle, say, exerts on another can not be transmitted instantaneously.

Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then from the article on the EPR paradox,

If one adds to quantum mechanics some seemingly reasonable (but actually wrong, or questionable as a whole) conditions (referred to as locality) — realism (not to be confused with philosophical realism), counterfactual definiteness, and completeness (see Bell inequality and Bell test experiments) — then one obtains a contradiction.

EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I am not knowledgeable enough in quantum theory to really understand the incompatibility (if there is one).

 

What are your thoughts, PerfectLiquid?

 

~modest

[Rade]

I would argue that "space" but not "time" can be "directly" related to the physical as relates to relativity.

 

Time for me is a type of number that is counted as relates to the motion of some physical entity, thus the entity that exists is physical, not time. By definition (not mine, but from Aristotle) time = that which is intermediate between moments. Space then can be thought of as the motionless physical boundary of place that contains the physical things that existent--thus it is a type of surface that can be bent. In the same way that time is NOT composed of moments, space is NOT composed of existents. However, moments (past, present, future) can be said to be in time, in the same way existents (earth, apple, electron) can be said to be in space.

 

In another thread I have then suggested that time = the nothingness between quantum events, which can then here be expanded to space = the motionless physical boundary of place that contains and is between quantum entities. So, we combine terms and get as relates to relativity: space-time = the nothingness of the motionless physical boundary of place that is intermediate between quantum entity events. Now, I am not a physicist so most likely you will find little use for such simplistic philosophic ideas about space and time.

[watcher]

While Einstein, among others, was involved in starting this trend, he became increasingly concerned that the study of physics was abandoning the pursuit of fundamental mechanisms in favor of statistical descriptions such as quantum mechanics.

 

remember that good ole erwin was dissatisfied with the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics he helped founded. he had always advocated that the wave function are representative of real physical waves. but the logical positivists ( if the calculation is right never mind what is it that we are calculating) eventually prevailed and thus the solution of the wave function in by statistical manipulation.

 

The challenge of this thread is to consider whether it is possible to mount a return to fundamental descriptions of what nature is, versus how nature acts.

 

to the inquiry as to what nature is, requires the knowledge to directly perceived its "substance/essence". which imo is not possible. see analogy below. if true, then we are left to study and understand the behavior of nature and in particular the wave behavior of matter/particles.

 

bohm even introduced the "pilot wave" to account for the wave behavior of a particle. the rationale i think is simple... if it behaves like a wave it must be a wave.

 

As the title suggests, can space-time be physically described in substantive terms that reasonably account for the properties of relativity?

 

yes. e.g. Lorentz transformation is the same as doppler effect. which is a wave phenomena.

 

This query stands in contrast to certain basic assumptions that underlie quantum mechanics (i.e., that we will be unable to characterize the elements of nature responsible for the behaviors that are observed).

 

we have already characterize the elements of nature as waves expressed in frequency, wavelength and amplitudes. i think the problem is that our scientist given a choice to decide whether the waves or the particles are physical, has chosen the particles to be physical and the wave as an abstraction.

 

of course again erwin thought the otherway around , that is ... waves are real and particles are appearances only. on the other hand, , einstein had already given up a complete localization of particles. iow he accepted the non-locality of the theoretical model of the waves.

 

i think this is the reason why these waves are not acceptable as physical entities. our present criteria of what is physical simply goes against the notions of these waves. and we cannot directly observed this waves because our brain as the tool of our perception is tuned only to a specific broad band of this waves the same way that the radio tuner can only pick up a specific frequency from the environment of various frequencies.

 

 

.

[AnssiH]

I am not knowledgeable enough in quantum theory to really understand the incompatibility (if there is one).

 

The incompatibility is "apparent" one, in the sense that it arises from the specific interpretation of those theories. Very commonly made interpretations, but nevertheless. It is easy to understand the incompatibility in intuitive terms if you just think about the EPR paradox and the consequential Bell experiments, and the collapse of causality in relativistic spacetime upon information speeds exceeding C.

 

Of course it is possible to generate ontological interpretations that are compatible.

 

Have you thought about what would the validity of DD's work mean in this context? I.e. what would it mean if we get our expectations for the behavior of defined objects from quantum mechanical expression, simply because that is the expectation for objects whose definitions arise from re-occurring patterns within otherwise meaningless activity of patterns? I.e. what if the so-called "entangled particles" are immaterial references to specific data patterns, and thus the addition of information about the situation (measuring one particle) yields changes to our expectations about the other particle via quantum mechanical expression (which yields different expectations than the classical worldview, which assumes the particles hold ontological identity to themselves somehow, or otherwise obey some undefendable assumptions)

 

-Anssi