nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Does time exist?

roosh

Personally I believe that time does not exist, that it is merely a figment of the imagination of mankind, and our subsequent belief that it is an external force acting in the universe, makes it, by definition, an illusion.

I know for people in this forum, that this is probably not a radically new idea, however, trying to discuss it with people who are more scientifically trained than I, leads to the usual dismissal of the notion as "crackpottery".

As the notion of time has a very real impact on how mankind behaves, and with the impact that the scineces have on the collective psyche, I personally believe that such a question be given serious consideration, as the impact that it has on the collective worldview is very relevant, important and fundamental to the question of existence.

I would be interested in hearing anyone elses views on whether time exists in reality or is merely the invention of mankind, based on a misperception of naturally occuring phenomena.

I ultimately see time as a measurement system, as opposed to a force than can be measured. It is often pointed out to me, that time dilation is evidence that the contemporary conceptualisation of time is correct, as per the theory of General Relativity. The issue I have with this however, is that there is a self-contained notion of time that amounts to circular reasoning.

Ultimately it is assumed that time exists, and that clocks measure time. However, with regard to the clocks, I believe it is erroneous to suggest that they measure an external entity/force called time.

With regard to the atomic clock, what is measured is the microwave emissions of changing electrons, while the older clocks that give rise to the 24hr clock were the measure of the degree of the earths rotation. To then make the jump to say that these things measure anything other than what was stated i.e. emissions of changing electrons, or the degree of the rotation of the earth, namely that they measure the force that is time, is a non sequitor, it is illogical.

How I see it, and again this is probably nothing fundamentally new, is that when time is given as a measurement, what is actually being measured is the change that occurs in an object relative to the number of microwave emissions of a changing electron in an atom, or relative to the degrees of rotation of the earth, or relative to some other [almost] constant phenomenon.

The practical implication of this, is that instead of viewing time as a force of nature, it is merely viewed as a measurement system, akin to the metric system, and is afforded no special properties with regard to the "spacetime continuum".

What adds perhaps, further credence to this is outlined in the following articles Article #1 and Article #2.

These refer to a solution to the equations for General Relativity, where time seems to "disappear". This is often referred to "as the problem of time" in Physics, and as far as I can gather is represented as Diffeomorphism Symmetry.

For those that are mathematically minded, there is an online lecture given by Lee Smolin. The first lecture is an introduction to "the problem of time" and doesn't really require much mathematical training. The second would require much better mathematical training in order to understand. That is where I left it, as my maths is only leaving cert level (and first year college).

Any ideas on the issue are welcome.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

finnegann

Joycey wrote: »

Sorry for the late reply, ive only just seen this.

Well if you take as your definition of a "now" - a given unchanging arrangement of all the matter in the universe, then there are indeed "nows" in relativity. The snapshot metaphor captures the idea nicely IMO.

I think one of the main attractions to Barbour of his theory is that it makes relativity and quantum physics cohere, at least to some extent, by removing the idea of time from them at all, thus removing a central area of conflict between the two theories.

I like that idea, and undoubtedly this is what time is, however what you have done is simply expressed the truth that cohabitation of space is possible, you have not really explained anything in saying it.

I think you have mixed up cause and effect, like what Joe was saying above, in that rather than "without it nothing would happen as all things would be fixed in place", its more something like this "different arrangements of matter are observed to occur, hence a concept of time arises in us in order to comprehend this difference". Time is not an objective phenomenon which permits this difference, it is the apphrehension of this difference that leads us to believe in time.

A lot of the "philosophers" on this thread seem keen to make the distinction between what "objectively exists" and what "appears to exist" only as some mental construct.
Let's throw time into the second bin but we'll have our consciousness and various phenomena in the first one. On what grounds? With this sort of solipsistic paranoia why stop
at time? Maybe nothing has an objective reality... You can see how this line of reasoning quickly trips up and falls down the stairs of common sense.

If you are interested in the nature of time, my advice would be to put down the dusty old Aquinas and Kant tomes, give eastern mystics a wide birth and listen to what some
physicists have to say. The nature of time is far from an "outdated orthodoxy" but is the subject of intense and exciting debate within many fields of physics. I'll just mention
one that hasn't been discussed here- The arrow of time.

The direction of time is a curious idea in thermodynamics. As the universe moves forward in time it gets more and more disordered. Think of
an ice cube being dropped into a cup of tea... The ice cube will heat up and melt, the energy transaction will never happen backwards with heat suddenly escaping an ice cube
shaped volume in the middle of a cup of tea creating a single floating cube in an otherwise hot cup! Entropy (as this disorder is known) is sometimes fobbed off as a statistical
law, but the fact that it can only happen in one direction means that there is a fundamental link between the mechanics of energy transfer at the smallest measurable scales and
this arrow of time. Some theorists believe that if the universe continues to expand and lose entropy, eventually (trillions of years down the line) there will be no more energy
to dissipate (sometimes called the "heat-death" of the universe) and as such, since entropy will have stopped there will be no more arrow of time, in effect time will end. Seems
hard to get your head around (in the same way as the beginning of time some 14 billion years ago is hard to get your head around).

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Again, nobody is disputing that the light will reach him first. The light will reach him at t2 and t4 (from the perspective of oberver 2), and at t2' and t4' from the perspective of observer 1. But since the speed of light is the same for both observers, they must disagree on when the lightning struck. Let my explain why your scenario would mean the speed of light is not the same for all observers:

According to your scenario, rod B is a distance L/2 away when lightning strikes. Both observer 1 and observer 2 are at location x = 0 when this happens. Observer 1 speeds towards the light wave at some velocity v. Let's say he meets the light wave one second after the lightning strikes. So in that second, the wave of light travels at speed c, so that it is a distance of one light-second away from the rod. Both observer 1 and observer 2 would agree that the light was one light-second away from the rod when it met observer 1. Observer 1 would therefore conclude, in agreement with observer 2, that the the lightning struck one second after observer 1 met the wave. The wave would continue on to observer 2 (say 1.5 seconds after the lightning struck). So far so good.

But here is the catch. Observer 1 sees the rod travelling towards him at a speed of v. If the light was able to speed ahead of the rod, so that it was one light-second ahead of the rod after one second, then observer 1 would observe the light travelling at a speed of (c+v)! Otherwise how could it be a light-second ahead of the rod? Observer 1 could do a quick calculation and work out that the speed of light, with respect to its source, is c. But the speed of light is c with respect to all observers, not just the rest-frame of the source.

In other words, if both observers agree about the distance the light travelled before meeting observer 1, and both observers disagree about the motion of the rod, then they cannot agree on the speed of light.

OK, both observers agree on the speed of light, that is a given from the outset; what they can differ on is either the simultaneity of events, or the distance the light had to travel.

The thought experiment works on the assumption that Observer 1 will measure each rod as being equidistant from him, when he observers their respective flashes. That is the assumption that is being challenged.

To try and demonstrate why it is inaccurate, we need to introduce a few more props. If we introduce a third rod that is located mid-way between A and B, and if we assume that the track on which the train is running is actually graduated, like a measuring stick. Then, if we assume that the Observer on the train is carrying precision photography equipment, which captures exactly what he himself observes.

Picturing the event again, we can make the analogy between the flash of lightning and the flash from a camera, only in reverse. When the light from each rod reaches the photography equipment it registers much like a photo, encoding the information and giving a perfect representation of what the Observer on the train will see.

When the flash from rod B reaches the camera it will not only register the picture of the rod, but also the associated measurement on the graduated track. When the light from rod A reaches the camera, it will do likewise, with one difference, it will also register the rod at the mid-way point.

Comparing the two photographs the Observer on the train should conclude that the light had to travel different distances to him.

The track could also be set up with triggers at each of the three rods, which register with a device on the train, which will allow anyone who checks the Odometer to measure the distance between each rod, and the overall distance between rods A and B.

Morbert wrote: »

And to reiterate, what is the distance it has traversed? According to observer 2, the rod is stationary, and the light has traversed a distance of one light second to meet observer 1. But according to observer 1, if we follow your train of thought, the rod is observed to be moving towards him at speed v, and the light still traverses a light-second ahead of the rod.

the distance traversed is the distance the light has to travel before reaching the Observer, as you indicated above, the Observer on the train will not meet each "beam" of light at the mid-point between the rods.

The issue with the assumption that the Observer on the train will measure both rods as being equidistant, is how does the light - which is carrying the information - get encoded with information it hasn't actually encountered, in the case of the light from rod B, and lose information it has encountered, in the case of the light from rod A.

Morbert wrote: »

You are reading to much into my use of the word image. I meant it in the same way a photograph is an "image" of the past. We don't directly see the moon, but instead see an "image" of where it was when the light left it. Likewise, observer 1 sees an image of where the rod was when light left it. I cannot stress enough that, when scientists are talking about time dilation, or the lack of an absolute present, they are not merely talking about the different times of detection of light. That is incorporated into relativity.

I understood the use of the term "past", but I was just trying to give a more accurate representation of the phenomenon.

Morbert wrote: »

Then what is the absolute "present"? What must we be stationary with respect to in order to determine the true present?

If we go back to your example of the people standing around a radio, you mentioned that each hears the radio at a different decible, so which is the true snapshot? The true snapshot is of both observers and what they hear, not just one persons perpcetption of it; the true snapshot is the room and everything in it at that particular moment, whatever form that takes.

Yahew

This conversation is as dull as dishwater.

The fact that observers see light strike them at different times says nothing about the non-existence of time, in the general theory this spacetime time is assumed to be a 4th dimension, which is not a proof of it's non-existance, but the opposite.

And as finnegann suggests, my bedroom doesn't make itself. The universe is trending in the direction of entropy. Thats clear in real life, and it's clear in the general and special theories regardless of when light hits the specific observers.

roosh

Yahew wrote: »

This conversation is as dull as dishwater.

The fact that observers see light strike them at different times says nothing about the non-existence of time, in the general theory this spacetime time is assumed to be a 4th dimension, which is not a proof of it's non-existance, but the opposite.

And as finnegann suggests, my bedroom doesn't make itself. The universe is trending in the direction of entropy. Thats clear in real life, and it's clear in the general and special theories regardless of when light hits the specific observers.

In the context of the discussion, time dilation, and the non-simultaneity of events, was being used as evidence to demonstrate the existence of time. That is the point that is being challenged. It doesn't prove that time doesn't exist, it simply attempts to refute any evidence for the existence of time.

As such, the argument is that there is no evidence which, when correctly interpreted, supports the contention that time exists. The assumption that time forms a fourth dimension is not proof that time exists, because it is circular reasoning.

I was going to respond to finnegans post later on, but I'll have a look at it again. Needless to say, I'm going to be asking how the universe tending towards disorder is evidence of the existence of time?

Feel free to offer your thoughts.

roosh

finnegann wrote: »

A lot of the "philosophers" on this thread seem keen to make the distinction between what "objectively exists" and what "appears to exist" only as some mental construct.
Let's throw time into the second bin but we'll have our consciousness and various phenomena in the first one. On what grounds? With this sort of solipsistic paranoia why stop
at time? Maybe nothing has an objective reality... You can see how this line of reasoning quickly trips up and falls down the stairs of common sense.

If you are interested in the nature of time, my advice would be to put down the dusty old Aquinas and Kant tomes, give eastern mystics a wide birth and listen to what some
physicists have to say. The nature of time is far from an "outdated orthodoxy" but is the subject of intense and exciting debate within many fields of physics. I'll just mention
one that hasn't been discussed here- The arrow of time.

The direction of time is a curious idea in thermodynamics. As the universe moves forward in time it gets more and more disordered. Think of
an ice cube being dropped into a cup of tea... The ice cube will heat up and melt, the energy transaction will never happen backwards with heat suddenly escaping an ice cube
shaped volume in the middle of a cup of tea creating a single floating cube in an otherwise hot cup! Entropy (as this disorder is known) is sometimes fobbed off as a statistical
law, but the fact that it can only happen in one direction means that there is a fundamental link between the mechanics of energy transfer at the smallest measurable scales and
this arrow of time. Some theorists believe that if the universe continues to expand and lose entropy, eventually (trillions of years down the line) there will be no more energy
to dissipate (sometimes called the "heat-death" of the universe) and as such, since entropy will have stopped there will be no more arrow of time, in effect time will end. Seems
hard to get your head around (in the same way as the beginning of time some 14 billion years ago is hard to get your head around).

Instead of just listening to what some physicists have to say, and blindly accepting it, why not question it for yourself and challenge the assumptions where you meet them, regardless of the authority of the person who holds them.

As the course is changed to give eastern mystics a wide-berth, why not look out the window and see what you pick up on the way. Perhaps this quote attributed to "the Buddha" might be food for thought

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Now, how exactly is the fact that the universe is tending towards disorder, or increased entropy, evidence for anything other than the fact that the universe is tending towards disorder, or increased entropy?

Where, in the smashing of a cup on the floor not happeing in reverse, is time to be seen?

Yahew

roosh wrote: »

Now, how exactly is the fact that the universe is tending towards disorder, or increased entropy, evidence for anything other than the fact that the universe is tending towards disorder, or increased entropy?

Where, in the smashing of a cup on the floor not happeing in reverse, is time to be seen?

Um, because it doesn't ever reverse the process, hence the arrow of time moves in the direction of entropy.

By the way, it's interesting that your argument against "authority" - the physicists who can do the hard maths on this - was using an Eastern mystic and was itself an argument to authority.

roosh

Yahew wrote: »

Um, because it doesn't ever reverse the process, hence the arrow of time moves in the direction of entropy.

again, how exactly does the "arrow of time" move in the direction of entropy, what you have shown is that the arrow of entropy moves in one direction i.e. that the universe moves from order to disorder - where does time come into it?

Yahew wrote: »

By the way, it's interesting that your argument against "authority" - the physicists who can do the hard maths on this - was using an Eastern mystic and was itself an argument to authority.

except that it wasn't, it was the opposite of an argument from authority because the point being made wasn't, hey accept what this guy says because he is an eastern mystic - which would have been an argument from authority (except that wasn't what was said) - it was don't accept arguments from authority, oh, and here is an eastern mystic who says it too, but hey, don't just accept it because he said it, hold it up to scrutiny.

EDIT: btw, if you are disagreeing with what is said in the quote, then you are advocating arguments from authority

Yahew

roosh wrote: »

again, how exactly does the "arrow of time" move in the direction of entropy, what you have shown is that the arrow of entropy moves in one direction i.e. that the universe moves from order to disorder - where does time come into it?

The direction of entropy is the direction of time. I thought I explained that. This isn;t a semantic game, it is the explanation of the direction of time. You might well have noticed this yourself when you put an ice cube in a cup of tea.

except that it wasn't, it was the opposite of an argument from authority because the point being made wasn't, hey accept what this guy says because he is an eastern mystic - which would have been an argument from authority (except that wasn't what was said) - it was don't accept arguments from authority, oh, and here is an eastern mystic who says it too, but hey, don't just accept it because he said it, hold it up to scrutiny.

Yet, you didn't quote Chidyun Nyugen from Nagkik, you quoted Buddha, a figure of authority. I was reminded of a scene from Python, you know the one.

In any case the questioning of authority as a "proof" is not acceptable in and of itself, so lets leave that to wither on the vine.

roosh

Yahew wrote: »

The direction of entropy is the direction of time. I thought I explained that. This isn;t a semantic game, it is the explanation of the direction of time. You might well have noticed this yourself when you put an ice cube in a cup of tea.

You may have thought that you explained it, but you didn't explain it at all.

The direction of entropy is the direction of entropy, how can it possibly be the direction of time also?

While I've never put an ice cube in a cup of tea, I can imagine the penomenon you are referring to; again, however, how is a melting ice cube evidence for time? The fact that the process doesn't happen in reverse doesn't show that time exists, it shows that an ice cube won't reform after it is melted.

Again, the imagined arrow of direction applies to entropy and not a separate, existential property called time.

Yahew wrote: »

Yet, you didn't quote Chidyun Nyugen from Nagkik, you quoted Buddha, a figure of authority. I was reminded of a scene from Python, you know the one.

If I was familiar with a quote form the aforementioned I would have quoted it, but I'm not, and even if I had it would still not have made any difference to the fact that it wasn't an argument from authority.

Here:

Quoting something from an "authority" and saying, here, look, this authority says it, therefore, it is true = argument from authority
Saying, don't accept something as true because an authority figure says it is, and then quoting an "authority" figure who says don't accept arguments from authority ≠ argument from authority

EDIT:

Yahew wrote: »

In any case the questioning of authority as a "proof" is not acceptable in and of itself, so lets leave that to wither on the vine.

Indeed

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

OK, both observers agree on the speed of light, that is a given from the outset; what they can differ on is either the simultaneity of events, or the distance the light had to travel.

The thought experiment works on the assumption that Observer 1 will measure each rod as being equidistant from him, when he observers their respective flashes. That is the assumption that is being challenged.

Yes, and to clarify: For any one lightning strike, the rods will not be equidistant. I.e. When Rod B is struck, rod A and rod B will not be the same distance from observer 1. But when rod B is struck, it will be a distance of ɣL/2 from observer 1. When rod A is struck, at a later time, it will also be a distance of ɣL/2. This is all from observer 1's perspective of course.

To try and demonstrate why it is inaccurate, we need to introduce a few more props. If we introduce a third rod that is located mid-way between A and B, and if we assume that the track on which the train is running is actually graduated, like a measuring stick. Then, if we assume that the Observer on the train is carrying precision photography equipment, which captures exactly what he himself observes.

Picturing the event again, we can make the analogy between the flash of lightning and the flash from a camera, only in reverse. When the light from each rod reaches the photography equipment it registers much like a photo, encoding the information and giving a perfect representation of what the Observer on the train will see.

Yes. As I mentioned earlier. We can assume the observers have infinitely precise instruments.

When the flash from rod B reaches the camera it will not only register the picture of the rod, but also the associated measurement on the graduated track. When the light from rod A reaches the camera, it will do likewise, with one difference, it will also register the rod at the mid-way point.

Comparing the two photographs the Observer on the train should conclude that the light had to travel different distances to him.

The track could also be set up with triggers at each of the three rods, which register with a device on the train, which will allow anyone who checks the Odometer to measure the distance between each rod, and the overall distance between rods A and B.

the distance traversed is the distance the light has to travel before reaching the Observer, as you indicated above, the Observer on the train will not meet each "beam" of light at the mid-point between the rods.

The issue with the assumption that the Observer on the train will measure both rods as being equidistant, is how does the light - which is carrying the information - get encoded with information it hasn't actually encountered, in the case of the light from rod B, and lose information it has encountered, in the case of the light from rod A.

How is this an issue with relativity?

In post # 54, I derived the times of the lightning strikes.

Morbert wrote:

Now let's look at the times. Lightning strikes Rod A at

t' = ɣ(t - vxA/c^2) = ɣ(0 - vxA/c^2) = -ɣvxA/c^2

It strikes Rod B at

t' = ɣ(t - vxB/c^2) = ɣ(0 - vxB/c^2) = -ɣvXB/c^2.

xA is -L/2 and xB is +L/2, so the times for rod A and B are +ɣvL/2c^2 and -ɣvL/2c^2 respectively. Notice that the time for rod A is positive and rod B is negative. This means rod B is struck before observer 1 passes the midpoint, and rod A is struck after observer 1 passes the midpoint. So the light wave from rod A passes the midpoint, and hence the new rod, on its way to observer 1.

The graduated ruler between the rods would be a distance L in observer 2's frame of reference, and L/ɣ in observer 1's frame of reference.

None of this is an issue for relativity and I am wondering why you would think it is. If this is the reasing the author has given you, then he should know better. In short, he is neglecting length contraction, which will account for the rod positions.

If we go back to your example of the people standing around a radio, you mentioned that each hears the radio at a different decible, so which is the true snapshot? The true snapshot is of both observers and what they hear, not just one persons perpcetption of it; the true snapshot is the room and everything in it at that particular moment, whatever form that takes.

But I didn't ask for the true snapshot of the radio. I asked for the true decibel level of the radio. Do you believe there is a single 'true' decibel level?

In the context of the discussion, time dilation, and the non-simultaneity of events, was being used as evidence to demonstrate the existence of time. That is the point that is being challenged. It doesn't prove that time doesn't exist, it simply attempts to refute any evidence for the existence of time.

This isn't what they were being used for. They were being used to demonstrate that there is no single "present", and how Julian Barbour's timeless universe is consistent with relativity and very different to what you are proposing, which contradicts relativity.

finnegann

Ok, first of all- No serious scientist (bar a mathematician) would ever try to "PROVE" the existence of something. As a side project- perhaps you'd like to pick your favourite existent phenomena or object and apply the same ridiculous rigor in an attempt to prove it exists as you seem to be demanding of time.
Now, as for "blindly following" some physicists opinions... I pointed out that the concept of time is the subject of intense and exiting debate. Scientists disagree with one another more than anybody else over questions like this! Try to get beyond this idea of the old dogmatic orthodoxy of scientists blindly swallowing what their superiors have thought them and poisoning the minds of the rest of us. That's not how science works. In fact that's exactly the opposite of what happens. As for the Buddha quote- Nice quote. I think the last sentence captures the scientific ethos perfectly.
Finally, to return to the first point- the "entropy definition" of time (again this is one of many theories) like any other theory can only be said to explain the true nature of time in as much as it's predictions and experimental observations conform and coincide with more and more evidence. My point was that these lines of inquiry are out best attempt at grasping the true picture of reality.

roosh

I'll separate the response to your post into that specifically dealing with Special Relativity, and the shorter point on the "true present".

OK, I can see now that I haven't entirely understood the whole notion of the length contraction. To a certain extent is appears as though you are assuming your conclusion, but I know that length contraction is a direct consequence of the Michelson Morley experiment (MMX) - so I've been trying to get a better grasp of that; incidentally, the author of the webite (who I by no means accept as being definitively correct) offers an alternative reason for the null result of the MMX.

It could be, and to your mind quite probably is, down to my lack of understanding of Special Relativity and Length contraction, but, as mentioned, it appears as though there is circular reasoning involved, or perhaps more pointedly that the reasoning involves smoke and mirrors - I'm not saying that you are, or anyone else is, deliberately attempting to deceive, because I don't think that, it just appears - to my mind - that that there is faulty reasoning in there somewhere, which is difficult to pin down because of the different reference frames; again, this could quite easily be down to my misunderstanding of SR.

If you have the inclination to continue then we might either tease that circular reasoning out, or I will learn where I am going wrong in my understanding of Special Relativity and length contraction.

If not, the separate point on the "true present" might be a prefarable point of continuation.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, and to clarify: For any one lightning strike, the rods will not be equidistant. I.e. When Rod B is struck, rod A and rod B will not be the same distance from observer 1. But when rod B is struck, it will be a distance of ɣL/2 from observer 1. When rod A is struck, at a later time, it will also be a distance of ɣL/2. This is all from observer 1's perspective of course.

In post # 54, I derived the times of the lightning strikes.

xA is -L/2 and xB is +L/2, so the times for rod A and B are +ɣvL/2c^2 and -ɣvL/2c^2 respectively. Notice that the time for rod A is positive and rod B is negative. This means rod B is struck before observer 1 passes the midpoint, and rod A is struck after observer 1 passes the midpoint. So the light wave from rod A passes the midpoint, and hence the new rod, on its way to observer 1.

None of this is an issue for relativity and I am wondering why you would think it is. If this is the reasing the author has given you, then he should know better. In short, he is neglecting length contraction, which will account for the rod positions.

The emboldened sentences above I think capture where my lack of understanding of length contraction is, and probably ɣ.

Firstly - and this may seem like a silly question - but does the distance ɣL/2 (from

equal the distance ɣL/2 (from A) - or is there something in the calculation of ɣ that means that they are not the same distance.

I've been assuming that the both distances are equal, and represent the distance from the midpoint to both A & B, from the perspective of Observer 1 (on the train).

It is this assumption which has lead me to question how, if Rod B is struck before Observer 1 passes it, can the distance be ɣL/2?
-I'm assuming here you mean at a point before the midpoint and not before he has passed it, as in, as he is passing it

Also, if Rod A is struck after Observer 1 passes the midpoint, how can the distance to Observer 1 be ɣL/2?

Morbert wrote: »

The graduated ruler between the rods would be a distance L in observer 2's frame of reference, and L/ɣ in observer 1's frame of reference.

Just on this point: it isn't so much that there is a graduated ruler for each Observer, it is more that the track along which the train is running is graduated like a ruler.

The issue is that the track forms part of Observer 2's reference frame, because the [graduated] train track and Oberver 2 are stationary with respect to each other, while Observer 1 is moving relative to both.

Am I right in saying that Observer 1's reference frame [should] consist of solely him and the train; and that the length of the train tracks should contract from his perspective [particularly between the rods]?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

But I didn't ask for the true snapshot of the radio. I asked for the true decibel level of the radio. Do you believe there is a single 'true' decibel level?

This isn't what they were being used for. They were being used to demonstrate that there is no single "present", and how Julian Barbour's timeless universe is consistent with relativity and very different to what you are proposing, which contradicts relativity.

I'll take these two points together, because they relate to the idea of a "true present".

Seeing as thought experiments are a bit of theme in this discussion, I'll propose, again, the idea of a "universal pause button", a button which, when pushed, pauses the entire universe; it pauses the planets in their orbits; it pauses trains travelling at 80% the speed of light; it pauses light waves, sound waves and the waves in the ocean; it pauses the neural activity of every brain in the universe; it pauses every single sub-atomic particle in their relative positions; it pauses the membrane in 11-dimensional space (if that is indeed an accurate representation of reality)

Now, if we take the room with the radio as a microcosmic view, and imagine that this pause button is pushed and everything freezes where it is, then that is the "true present" - whatever form that is, but not necessarily from any one persons perspective.

There isn't necessarily a "single 'true' decibel level", there is the [frozen] sound wave which has arrived at more than the ears of a single person; there is the corresponding brain activity in each individual, which gives rise to their interpretation of the sound; there are the atoms of everything in the room frozen in their relative positions.

In the case of Observers 1 & 2, if the universal pause button is hit, then the "true present" would be all the sub-atomic particles frozen in their relative positions; the neural activity of the observers (which gives rise to their persepectives) frozen; the photons frozen in their relative positions; the fold in spacetime (or whatever it is that happens to give rise to length contraction between two connected reference frames).

Again, the "true present" isn't necessarily seen from any one persons perspective, just imagine the entire universe being paused, and whatever the "state of play" is, that is the "true present".

Whatever form it takes, that would be the true present.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

The emboldened sentences above I think capture where my lack of understanding of length contraction is, and probably ɣ.

Firstly - and this may seem like a silly question - but does the distance ɣL/2 (from equal the distance ɣL/2 (from A) - or is there something in the calculation of ɣ that means that they are not the same distance.

I've been assuming that the both distances are equal, and represent the distance from the midpoint to both A & B, from the perspective of Observer 1 (on the train).

It is this assumption which has lead me to question how, if Rod B is struck before Observer 1 passes it, can the distance be ɣL/2?
-I'm assuming here you mean at a point before the midpoint and not before he has passed it, as in, as he is passing it

Also, if Rod A is struck after Observer 1 passes the midpoint, how can the distance to Observer 1 be ɣL/2?

It's not a silly question. ɣ is a scaling factor. A constant. The best way is by illustration.

Here is the situation from observer 2's frame of reference. Very straightforward.

Here is observer 1's frame of reference when the first rod is struck. Note that these pictures are of when the lightning actually strikes, not when an observer detects the strikes.

From this reference frame, it is the rods (and observer 2) that are moving. Notice that first rod is struck before observer 2 passes observer 1. The distance between the rods is shortened to L/ɣ. But observer 1 is not equally distant from both rods. So the distance between the lightning strike and him is not L/2ɣ, but rather ɣL/2 (a longer distance than L/2).

Then, the other rod is struck.

Here, observer 1 has passed the midpoint. Again I stress that these are not detection times. These are the actual strikes, calculated by the observers if the speed of the flashes are the same in both reference frames.

Just on this point: it isn't so much that there is a graduated ruler for each Observer, it is more that the track along which the train is running is graduated like a ruler.

The track itself, everything along the direction of travel, will be contracted.

The issue is that the track forms part of Observer 2's reference frame, because the [graduated] train track and Oberver 2 are stationary with respect to each other, while Observer 1 is moving relative to both.

Am I right in saying that Observer 1's reference frame [should] consist of solely him and the train; and that the length of the train tracks should contract from his perspective [particularly between the rods]?

Both reference frames contain everything. The difference is the train is moving according to observer 2, and the tracks and rods are moving according to observer 1. Relativity say neither is more correct. You can interpret the tracks as stationary, or as moving due to the rotation of the earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy, or the universe etc. No reference frame is more physically meaningful than any other.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

There isn't necessarily a "single 'true' decibel level", there is the [frozen] sound wave which has arrived at more than the ears of a single person; there is the corresponding brain activity in each individual, which gives rise to their interpretation of the sound; there are the atoms of everything in the room frozen in their relative positions.

Bingo. There isn't a single present. There is instead a 4-dimensional set of all events. It is the reference co-ordinates adopted which give rise to a "present, past, and future". Different co-ordinate systems mean different "present"s. This point was raised to show that relativity does not suppose each reference frame is a separate universe, but rather each frame is a different co-ordinate system applied to the same physical reality. Physics is largely about identifying what is the same for all observers. I.e. The structure of causal relationships, the speed of light, and the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. "Past, present, and future" are not.

In the case of Observers 1 & 2, if the universal pause button is hit, then the "true present" would be all the sub-atomic particles frozen in their relative positions; the neural activity of the observers (which gives rise to their persepectives) frozen; the photons frozen in their relative positions; the fold in spacetime (or whatever it is that happens to give rise to length contraction between two connected reference frames).

Again, the "true present" isn't necessarily seen from any one persons perspective, just imagine the entire universe being paused, and whatever the "state of play" is, that is the "true present".

Whatever form it takes, that would be the true present.

Let's push the pause button when observer 1 passes observer 2. According to observer 2, the lightning strikes would be frozen at the moment they strike the poles. But according to observer 1, there would be no lightning strikes in the present, since one has already happened, and the other is yet to happen. Which is the true present?

roosh

@Morbert - I am mindful of the probability that trying to explain some of the finer points of SR to someone who doesn't fully understand it, and who is actively trying to find fault with it - which, it must be said, will have the effect of either actually finding fault with it, or developing a better understanding of it (for me) - will become a nuisance, so again, I have to enquire if you are are content enough to continue with the "remedial class" on SR, or if you would prefer that a separate thread be started elsewhere (in the appropraite forum).

As it is more beneficial for me, than I imagine it is for you, I am content to continue.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

@Morbert - I am mindful of the probability that trying to explain some of the finer points of SR to someone who doesn't fully understand it, and who is actively trying to find fault with it - which, it must be said, will have the effect of either actually finding fault with it, or developing a better understanding of it (for me) - will become a nuisance, so again, I have to enquire if you are are content enough to continue with the "remedial class" on SR, or if you would prefer that a separate thread be started elsewhere (in the appropraite forum).

As it is more beneficial for me, than I imagine it is for you, I am content to continue.

Feel free to continue. A good command of our current physical theories about time can only help any philosophical positions you might take.

roosh

@Morbert - to try and understand the explanation of SR better, I have gone back over our discussion and tried to see if there are things I've misinterpreted - such as reading ɣL/2 as L/2ɣ. In so doing I came across a few things that I am having trouble reconciling; these could indicate where I am having trouble.

I am not entirely sure of the significance of the points.

Observer 2 perspective: Basic Fractions

Morbert wrote: »

According to observer 2: The rods are a distance L apart (Rod A is at location xA. Rod B is at location xB. Observer 2 is at x = 0). Let's say, for simplicity, that according to observer 2, the strikes both occur at t = 0. I.e. Observer 2 will detect both flashes simultaneously, at t = L/2c (Or t3 to use you name), and deduce that they occurred at t = 0. In this same reference frame, the light from rods A and B will reach observer 1 at times L/2(c+v) and L/2(c-v) respectively (or t2 and t4 to use your names).

On this point, I don't really understand how the times, that the light from rods A and B will reach observer 1, are worked out as L/2(c+v), for A, and L/2(c-v), for B.

I think it is down to how I undertand the inofrmation in the equations. How I understand the formulae is as follows:
L/2(c+v): basically, from the perspective of Observer 2 (on the platform), the time the light from Rod A will reach observer one is: the time it takes the light to travel from Rod A to the midpoint (L/2c), plus the length of time it takes Observer 1 to travel the same distance (L/2v).

I'm presuming I'm making a very basic error with regard to fractions, as I am reading L/2(c+v) as L/2c + L/2v

Observer 2 perspective: measurement

This isn't, I don't think, down to a basic error in mathematics, but there may be an error in comprehension there somewhere.

Morbert wrote: »

The short, handwavey answer to this is the author is not treating observer 1 correctly. Observer 1 would not say the distance the light has to travel is L/2 - distance travelled by the train. From observer 1's perspective, he is stationary, and instead the light has to travel a distance of ɣL/2.

Morbert wrote: »

From observer 1's perspective, the lightning events are equidistant to him (The total distance being ɣL), but they occur at different times. When rod B is struck, it is a distance ɣL/2 away from observer 1. This occurs before both rods are equidistant to observer 1. (I probably should have shown in my last post that there is a length contraction between the rods. They are a distance L/ɣ. The ɣL should be called the distance between lightning strikes.) So by the time observer 1 is passing observer 2, there has already been a bolt of lightning.

Morbert wrote: »

It's not a silly question. ɣ is a scaling factor. A constant. The best way is by illustration.

Here is the situation from observer 2's frame of reference. Very straightforward.

Here is observer 1's frame of reference when the first rod is struck. Note that these pictures are of when the lightning actually strikes, not when an observer detects the strikes.

From this reference frame, it is the rods (and observer 2) that are moving. Notice that first rod is struck before observer 2 passes observer 1. The distance between the rods is shortened to L/ɣ. But observer 1 is not equally distant from both rods. So the distance between the lightning strike and him is not L/2ɣ, but rather ɣL/2 (a longer distance than L/2).

Then, the other rod is struck.

OK, from this I understand that the distance from Observer 1 to each event, at their respective times, is ɣL/2.

Morbert wrote: »

The same goes for rod A. Rod A will be further away, but he will not observe rod A to be further away as that information has not reached him. What he sees is how far away rod A was when it was struck. This allows him to calculate the distance travelled by the light, and deduce when rod A was struck.

Morbert wrote: »

He won't "see" the rod closer to him. When the lightning struck, rod B was a distance of ɣL/2 away from him. So the flash of light contains information about a rod of distance ɣL/2 away. At the instant he sees the flash, the rod will be closer, but he won't see a closer rod because that information has not reached him yet. So he sees a rod ɣL/2 away get struck. He knows he is seeing an image from the past, and by considering the speed of light and the distance it travelled, he can work how when, in the past, the lightning struck. He will reach a different conclusion to observer 2.

From the above I understand that Observer 1 will measure the distance of each event as ɣL/2.

An issue, as I see it
Observer 1 won't measure the distance of either strike as ɣL/2; because Observer 1 is travelling relative to "distance" also.

That may seem like a strange statement, but if we consider what the distance actually is, we can see that it can be expressed as the length of track between Observer 1 and the rods; as this is the information which will be encoded by the light.

If Observer 1 is ɣL/2 from Rod B at the time of the strike, by the time the light reaches Observer 1 the track will have moved relative to him, and so the light will not have to traverse as much of the track, thus encoding a distance shorter than ɣL/2.

Would it be [roughly] a distance of 5ɣL/18?

I'm not sure if this calculation is correct, but I am basing it on the ratio of the velocity of the track to the speed of light, so that 4/9 of the ɣL/2 length of track will have passsed underneath Observer 1 when the light meets him.

Similarly, if Rod A is ɣL/2 away from Observer 1, when it is struck, when it eventually reaches Observer 1 it will have travelled a length of track longer than ɣL/2, to reach Observer 1, and thus will have a distance of greater than ɣL/2 encoded. I'm not entirely sure what the calculation for that would be - it would probably require a rounding up to avoid invoking Zeno's paradox.

I'm not entirely sure what the implications would be; is there any significance to the idea that the Observer on the train would measure a distance of ɣL/2 to both rods?

Time: t=0
This is just something else I have a question on, because I'm having trouble with the arbitrary designation of t=0, as the occurence of the lightning events at A & B in Observer 2's reference frame. Would it make a difference if t=0 was set as the time that the lightning first manifested from the clouds i.e. the first spark arising from the friction which travels downwards to the earth?

I'm just wondering would both observers disagree on the simultaneity of the flash of lightning travelling towards the earth, before it strikes the rods - as in, would there be a length contraction that would lead them to disagree, or is the flash of lightning not travelling in the direction of motion and therefore there is no length contraction?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Bingo. There isn't a single present. There is instead a 4-dimensional set of all events. It is the reference co-ordinates adopted which give rise to a "present, past, and future". Different co-ordinate systems mean different "present"s. This point was raised to show that relativity does not suppose each reference frame is a separate universe, but rather each frame is a different co-ordinate system applied to the same physical reality. Physics is largely about identifying what is the same for all observers. I.e. The structure of causal relationships, the speed of light, and the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. "Past, present, and future" are not.

Morbert wrote: »

Let's push the pause button when observer 1 passes observer 2. According to observer 2, the lightning strikes would be frozen at the moment they strike the poles. But according to observer 1, there would be no lightning strikes in the present, since one has already happened, and the other is yet to happen. Which is the true present?

I'll respond to the latter of the two points, because I think it goes more to the heart of the argument, and it is a more tangible representation of the preceding point.

It is the idea that either frame of reference represents the "true present"; because the "true present" consists of both reference frames; just as with SR, no one reference frame is preferable to the other.

If we push the button at the time Observer 1 passes Observer 2, then the lightning strikes would be frozen at the rods, but neither would see them, because the light wouldn't have travelled to Observer 2 yet, and the second bolt wouldn't have hit in Observer 1's reference frame.

Given that both referenc frames are connected, because they are in the same universe, and if we assume that it is the same lightning i.e. the same photons, which both Observers witness, then the lightning must be located somewhere in the universe, in some form - there may be some quantum effects at play.

The "true present" would be the flashes of lightning in one reference frame, but not the other, together with the relative locations of all the atoms and photons that make it possible for that to happen. If there is a fold in the spacetime continuum, that results from an Observer travelling at 80% the speed of light, and the light has to travel through that fold, then the true present includes that manipulation of spacetime and the location of the light along it's path.

roosh

finnegann wrote: »

Ok, first of all- No serious scientist (bar a mathematician) would ever try to "PROVE" the existence of something. As a side project- perhaps you'd like to pick your favourite existent phenomena or object and apply the same ridiculous rigor in an attempt to prove it exists as you seem to be demanding of time.
Now, as for "blindly following" some physicists opinions... I pointed out that the concept of time is the subject of intense and exiting debate. Scientists disagree with one another more than anybody else over questions like this! Try to get beyond this idea of the old dogmatic orthodoxy of scientists blindly swallowing what their superiors have thought them and poisoning the minds of the rest of us. That's not how science works. In fact that's exactly the opposite of what happens. As for the Buddha quote- Nice quote. I think the last sentence captures the scientific ethos perfectly.

I'm not for a second suggesting that the existence of time needs to be "proven", my position is more akin to that of an atheists position on the existence of God, I'm saying that there is no evidence to support the contention that time exists; and that any such evidence, of which I am aware, is the result of a misinterpretation of the evidence.

Equally, the impression that I have of scientists is not the "idea of the old dogmatic orthodoxy of scientists blindly swallowing what their superiors have thought them and poisoning the minds of the rest of us"; on the contrary, I see scientists as humans and prone the self-same pitfalls of the human condition as the rest of us, with attachment to conditioned beliefs and attachment to things they have invested their entire lives and carreers in - just like the rest of us. Scientists certainly espouse the right ideal, but such is the human condition that they may not always achieve it.

Perhaps something Max Planck recognised when he famously said

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

I don't see it as a necessarily deliberate and conscious process, but rather, much like the human condition, the result of sub-conscious conditioning

finnegann wrote: »

Finally, to return to the first point- the "entropy definition" of time (again this is one of many theories) like any other theory can only be said to explain the true nature of time in as much as it's predictions and experimental observations conform and coincide with more and more evidence. My point was that these lines of inquiry are out best attempt at grasping the true picture of reality.

I don't question the value of empirical enquiry, I do sometimes challenge the assumptions on which some of that enquiry is based - not that I am, in any way, alone in that.

Ultimately, the conclusion that entropy is evidence for the existence of time is a philosophical one, because it involves the interpretation of evidence, and the attempt to draw a conclusion from that evidence. It is that conclusion that is open to question.

And the question remains, how is entropy evidence for the existence of time.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

@Morbert - to try and understand the explanation of SR better, I have gone back over our discussion and tried to see if there are things I've misinterpreted - such as reading ɣL/2 as L/2ɣ. In so doing I came across a few things that I am having trouble reconciling; these could indicate where I am having trouble.

I am not entirely sure of the significance of the points.

Observer 2 perspective: Basic Fractions

On this point, I don't really understand how the times, that the light from rods A and B will reach observer 1, are worked out as L/2(c+v), for A, and L/2(c-v), for B.

I think it is down to how I undertand the inofrmation in the equations. How I understand the formulae is as follows:
L/2(c+v): basically, from the perspective of Observer 2 (on the platform), the time the light from Rod A will reach observer one is: the time it takes the light to travel from Rod A to the midpoint (L/2c), plus the length of time it takes Observer 1 to travel the same distance (L/2v).

I'm presuming I'm making a very basic error with regard to fractions, as I am reading L/2(c+v) as L/2c + L/2v

It's not really important, but it doesn't equal L/2c + L/2v. I can go through the derivation if you really want, but what it's basically saying is The order of events is lightning strikes - observer 1 meets first flash - observer 1 meets second flash.

An issue, as I see it
Observer 1 won't measure the distance of either strike as ɣL/2; because Observer 1 is travelling relative to "distance" also.

That may seem like a strange statement, but if we consider what the distance actually is, we can see that it can be expressed as the length of track between Observer 1 and the rods; as this is the information which will be encoded by the light.

If Observer 1 is ɣL/2 from Rod B at the time of the strike, by the time the light reaches Observer 1 the track will have moved relative to him, and so the light will not have to traverse as much of the track, thus encoding a distance shorter than ɣL/2.

Would it be [roughly] a distance of 5ɣL/18?

I'm not sure if this calculation is correct, but I am basing it on the ratio of the velocity of the track to the speed of light, so that 4/9 of the ɣL/2 length of track will have passsed underneath Observer 1 when the light meets him.

Since causality and coincident events must be the same in all reference frames, both observer 1 and observer 2 would agree about what the track ruler would register. Namely, (4/9)(L/2) = 4L/18, so you were close.

Similarly, if Rod A is ɣL/2 away from Observer 1, when it is struck, when it eventually reaches Observer 1 it will have travelled a length of track longer than ɣL/2, to reach Observer 1, and thus will have a distance of greater than ɣL/2 encoded. I'm not entirely sure what the calculation for that would be - it would probably require a rounding up to avoid invoking Zeno's paradox.

Zeno's paradox isn't an issue for modern calculus, as mathematicians have shown that infinite series can converge to a finite value.

You would simply need to solve the simultaneous equations

distance = v * time
distance + L/2 = c * time

The values you end up with are

time = L/2(c-v)
distance = Lv/2(c-v)

I'm not entirely sure what the implications would be; is there any significance to the idea that the Observer on the train would measure a distance of ɣL/2 to both rods?

Observer 1 would say the ruler on the track is wrong, since it is moving. If you want to measure the distance a ball is thrown, you wouldn't move the ruler with respect to the ball. So if you want to measure the distance a photon has travelled, you would not use a moving ruler. Observer 1, if he used his own ruler (say, if the train had graduated marks on its side, would measure the distance to be ɣL/2).

This touches on the issue of light aberration. Light from objects moving relative to the observer will make the objects appear distorted (Note that this is an optical effect, unlike simultaneity, which would be an inherent effect.). It doesn't directly impact this discussion, but it is worth mentioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4

Time: t=0
This is just something else I have a question on, because I'm having trouble with the arbitrary designation of t=0, as the occurence of the lightning events at A & B in Observer 2's reference frame. Would it make a difference if t=0 was set as the time that the lightning first manifested from the clouds i.e. the first spark arising from the friction which travels downwards to the earth?

I'm just wondering would both observers disagree on the simultaneity of the flash of lightning travelling towards the earth, before it strikes the rods - as in, would there be a length contraction that would lead them to disagree, or is the flash of lightning not travelling in the direction of motion and therefore there is no length contraction?

t = 0 is just a label and doesn't affect any of the physics. It just makes some calculations easier. Similarly, when we say lightning strikes, we simply mean the event of the lightning co-incident with the event of the rod. The movement of the storm, the rods, or the lightning is arbitrary.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

I'll respond to the latter of the two points, because I think it goes more to the heart of the argument, and it is a more tangible representation of the preceding point.

It is the idea that either frame of reference represents the "true present"; because the "true present" consists of both reference frames; just as with SR, no one reference frame is preferable to the other.

If we push the button at the time Observer 1 passes Observer 2, then the lightning strikes would be frozen at the rods, but neither would see them, because the light wouldn't have travelled to Observer 2 yet, and the second bolt wouldn't have hit in Observer 1's reference frame.

Given that both referenc frames are connected, because they are in the same universe, and if we assume that it is the same lightning i.e. the same photons, which both Observers witness, then the lightning must be located somewhere in the universe, in some form - there may be some quantum effects at play.

The "true present" would be the flashes of lightning in one reference frame, but not the other, together with the relative locations of all the atoms and photons that make it possible for that to happen. If there is a fold in the spacetime continuum, that results from an Observer travelling at 80% the speed of light, and the light has to travel through that fold, then the true present includes that manipulation of spacetime and the location of the light along it's path.

The bold sentence is the important one. We don't need to worry about quantum effects, as relativity says nothing about them. You are right. It needs to exist in some form in both reference frames. It exists in the present, according to one observer, and the future according to another. This is precisely the point I have been trying to illustrate. Events in the past and future must be just as real as events in the present. To say "only the present exist" would lead to contradictions, as the present is different, depending on which co-ordinate system you use.

What Julian Barbour has done is to frame the universe as the set of all possible configurations, and the notion of "time" or "change" emerges from this structure.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It's not really important, but it doesn't equal L/2c + L/2v. I can go through the derivation if you really want, but what it's basically saying is The order of events is lightning strikes - observer 1 meets first flash - observer 1 meets second flash.

Cheers, but there's hopefully no need to go through the derivation of it. I just did a quick refresher course on basic fractions on Kahn academy, and I [think I] see where I was going wrong with the basic multiplication of fractions, but I'm still having trouble understanding the information in the formula L/2(c+v).

It is basically (L/2)(1/[c+v]), isn't it? which says that the time it will take the light from Rod A to reach Observer 1 is given as the distance from Rod A to the midpoint divided by the sum of the speed of light plus the relative velocity.

Should it not be though, L/2c + the distance from the midpoint to the Observer, divided by the speed of light, or more pointedly, the overall distance from the rod to the Oberver (when the light reaches him) divided by the speed of light?

Morbert wrote: »

Since causality and coincident events must be the same in all reference frames, both observer 1 and observer 2 would agree about what the track ruler would register. Namely, (4/9)(L/2) = 4L/18, so you were close.

I have a question below about the encoding of information, by the light, which I think this issue is somewhat dependent on.

Morbert wrote: »

Zeno's paradox isn't an issue for modern calculus, as mathematicians have shown that infinite series can converge to a finite value.

It makes intuitive sense, but I had never heard it stated before.

Morbert wrote: »

Observer 1 would say the ruler on the track is wrong, since it is moving. If you want to measure the distance a ball is thrown, you wouldn't move the ruler with respect to the ball. So if you want to measure the distance a photon has travelled, you would not use a moving ruler. Observer 1, if he used his own ruler (say, if the train had graduated marks on its side, would measure the distance to be ɣL/2).

If the ball is at rest, however, and the ruler is moving relative to the ball, to find how much the ruler has moved relative to the ball you could see how much of the ruler has been displaced, no?

Morbert wrote: »

This touches on the issue of light aberration. Light from objects moving relative to the observer will make the objects appear distorted (Note that this is an optical effect, unlike simultaneity, which would be an inherent effect.). It doesn't directly impact this discussion, but it is worth mentioning.

It's probably related to the question of the information encoded by the light, asked below.

Morbert wrote: »

t = 0 is just a label and doesn't affect any of the physics. It just makes some calculations easier. Similarly, when we say lightning strikes, we simply mean the event of the lightning co-incident with the event of the rod. The movement of the storm, the rods, or the lightning is arbitrary.

Doesn't the movement of the lightning from the clouds to the rod affect the co-incident events? If the bolt of lightning moves perpendicular to the direction of motion, would that not mean that no legnth contraction occurs and both Observers would agree on the simultaneity up until the point of the strike?

Consequences
I'm just trying to follow the logical conclusions of this, and there's another issue that I am having trouble getting my head around, and it relates specifically to how light encodes information, and what information it would encode, in the thought experiment.

In order for Observer 1 to measure a distance of ɣL/2 to the pole (or the point of strike), the centre of the expanding sphere of light would have to remain localised a distance of ɣL/2 from Observer 1*, while the expanding sphere moves towards him. If the centre, of the expanding sphere of light, remains localised at the Rod*, then Observer 1 would measure the distance of 5ɣL/18, given that the distance would be displaced at a ratio of 4:5.

*we can install another stationary observer at the point of contact between lightning & rod to portray the idea of the localised centre at ɣL/2; we can also install an observer on the pole to demonstrate the localised centre moving with the pole.

If Observer 1 is ɣL/2 away from the rod when it is struck, then how does the light encode that information? I would have thought it would encode the inforamation as it moved along its path, from the rod to the Observer, which would have included the track and the other elements that made up the scenery; but it can't include the ɣL/2 length of track, because the light won't travel the length of it, as some of the track will have passed beneath Observer 1 by the time the light reaches him - unless the light travels instantly to Observer 1, which we know isn't the case. Can the light encode any information from the moving track, and what information would it encode?

If Observer 1 bases his measurement on the information encoded by the light, how does he do this?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

The bold sentence is the important one. We don't need to worry about quantum effects, as relativity says nothing about them. You are right. It needs to exist in some form in both reference frames. It exists in the present, according to one observer, and the future according to another. This is precisely the point I have been trying to illustrate. Events in the past and future must be just as real as events in the present. To say "only the present exist" would lead to contradictions, as the present is different, depending on which co-ordinate system you use.

What Julian Barbour has done is to frame the universe as the set of all possible configurations, and the notion of "time" or "change" emerges from this structure.

That brings us into the realm of "clock time" and "psychological time", where psychological time exists only as a concept; "past" and "future" fit into the category of psychological.

There is no actual "past" or "future" in any of the reference frames, each reference frame only exists in the "present"; the "past" or "future" in any reference frame only exists as an abstraction.

While 1 observer may say that something happened in his "past", it will only exist as a memory, while it [possibly] manifests in the present of another observer.

roosh

We probably don't need to wait for the results of this FTL neutrino experiment, for the purpose of the discussion, as it could be continued on the theoretical basis it has progressed on thus far.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Cheers, but there's hopefully no need to go through the derivation of it. I just did a quick refresher course on basic fractions on Kahn academy, and I [think I] see where I was going wrong with the basic multiplication of fractions, but I'm still having trouble understanding the information in the formula L/2(c+v).

It is basically (L/2)(1/[c+v]), isn't it? which says that the time it will take the light from Rod A to reach Observer 1 is given as the distance from Rod A to the midpoint divided by the sum of the speed of light plus the relative velocity.

Should it not be though, L/2c + the distance from the midpoint to the Observer, divided by the speed of light, or more pointedly, the overall distance from the rod to the Oberver (when the light reaches him) divided by the speed of light?

L/2(c+v) is the time observer 1 meets the 1st lightwave. L/2(c-v) is the time observer 1 meets the second light wave. It can be derived from "L/2c + the distance from the midpoint to the Observer, divided by the speed of light".

If the ball is at rest, however, and the ruler is moving relative to the ball, to find how much the ruler has moved relative to the ball you could see how much of the ruler has been displaced, no?

Yes, but that would only tell you how much the ruler was displaced. Furthermore, observer 1 would say the ruler is incorrectly calibrated, as the intervals between markings would be too short.

It's probably related to the question of the information encoded by the light, asked below.

Doesn't the movement of the lightning from the clouds to the rod affect the co-incident events? If the bolt of lightning moves perpendicular to the direction of motion, would that not mean that no legnth contraction occurs and both Observers would agree on the simultaneity up until the point of the strike?

That wouldn't matter. An event is just something with three spatial co-ordinates (x,y,z) and a time label (t).

Consequences
I'm just trying to follow the logical conclusions of this, and there's another issue that I am having trouble getting my head around, and it relates specifically to how light encodes information, and what information it would encode, in the thought experiment.

In order for Observer 1 to measure a distance of ɣL/2 to the pole (or the point of strike), the centre of the expanding sphere of light would have to remain localised a distance of ɣL/2 from Observer 1*, while the expanding sphere moves towards him. If the centre, of the expanding sphere of light, remains localised at the Rod*, then Observer 1 would measure the distance of 5ɣL/18, given that the distance would be displaced at a ratio of 4:5.

*we can install another stationary observer at the point of contact between lightning & rod to portray the idea of the localised centre at ɣL/2; we can also install an observer on the pole to demonstrate the localised centre moving with the pole.

This is an important point. The speed of light must be the same for all observers. If the rod is moving, (which it is according to oberver 1) the sphere cannot be centred on the rod, because that would mean the front of the sphere would be travelling at a speed of (c+v), and the back of the sphere would be travelling at a speed of c-v. But the speed must be c. So the incoming rod is actually closer to the observer than the centre. Hence, he sees where it was rather than where it is.

This is somewhat similar to the sound waves from an ambulance speeding towards you. The ambulance is not at the centre of the waves. Or take the more extreme case of a jet travelling faster than sound.

If Observer 1 is ɣL/2 away from the rod when it is struck, then how does the light encode that information? I would have thought it would encode the inforamation as it moved along its path, from the rod to the Observer, which would have included the track and the other elements that made up the scenery; but it can't include the ɣL/2 length of track, because the light won't travel the length of it, as some of the track will have passed beneath Observer 1 by the time the light reaches him - unless the light travels instantly to Observer 1, which we know isn't the case. Can the light encode any information from the moving track, and what information would it encode?

If Observer 1 bases his measurement on the information encoded by the light, how does he do this?

As the sphere of light crosses the track, it gathers information about different sections of the track at different times, and since the track is moving, you get a warping effect like the ones discussed in the video.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

That brings us into the realm of "clock time" and "psychological time", where psychological time exists only as a concept; "past" and "future" fit into the category of psychological.

There is no actual "past" or "future" in any of the reference frames, each reference frame only exists in the "present"; the "past" or "future" in any reference frame only exists as an abstraction.

While 1 observer may say that something happened in his "past", it will only exist as a memory, while it [possibly] manifests in the present of another observer.

But it's the same universe. It cannot be an both real and "just an abstraction". Either an event is real, or it is not. It can't be real for one person, and an abstraction for another.

There is an issue of the psychological "arrow" of time, but that is a separate issue to relativity, and would only add confusion if it were brought up now. Also remember that our "observers" are infinitely precise instruments, and not beings with psychological considerations.

We probably don't need to wait for the results of this FTL neutrino experiment, for the purpose of the discussion, as it could be continued on the theoretical basis it has progressed on thus far.

Yes. While it is certainly an exciting story, we should wait until systematic errors are ruled out as a possible explanation.

roosh

@Morbert - cheers for taking the time to go through this, I think I'm getting a much clearer visual understanding of it, which unfortunately often leads to more questions.

Morbert wrote: »

L/2(c+v) is the time observer 1 meets the 1st lightwave. L/2(c-v) is the time observer 1 meets the second light wave. It can be derived from "L/2c + the distance from the midpoint to the Observer, divided by the speed of light".

Cheers, I had understood the part in bold already; I suppose it is just the derivation of it that I am having trouble with, but there's no need to go into it.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, but that would only tell you how much the ruler was displaced. Furthermore, observer 1 would say the ruler is incorrectly calibrated, as the intervals between markings would be too short.

If Observer 1 knew how much the markings would be contracted by, could he not calculate how much of the ruler had been displaced i.e. how much the ball has moved relative to the ruler, and vice versa?

Morbert wrote: »

That wouldn't matter. An event is just something with three spatial co-ordinates (x,y,z) and a time label (t).

Would that make the lightning bolt, on it's path from the clounds to the pole a series of events then? If so, would it be travelling perpendicular to the direction of motion and so not be contracted, until it strikes the pole? I'm just wondering would that lead to a disconnect in Observer 1's reference frame, between the lightning bolt and it's striking of the pole?

Morbert wrote: »

This is an important point. The speed of light must be the same for all observers. If the rod is moving, (which it is according to oberver 1) the sphere cannot be centred on the rod, because that would mean the front of the sphere would be travelling at a speed of (c+v), and the back of the sphere would be travelling at a speed of c-v. But the speed must be c. So the incoming rod is actually closer to the observer than the centre. Hence, he sees where it was rather than where it is.

This is somewhat similar to the sound waves from an ambulance speeding towards you. The ambulance is not at the centre of the waves. Or take the more extreme case of a jet travelling faster than sound.

How does Observer 1 reconcile the fact that there must also be an expanding sphere of light centred on the pole? Does that mean that there are two distinct sphere's of expanding light?

Morbert wrote: »

As the sphere of light crosses the track, it gathers information about different sections of the track at different times, and since the track is moving, you get a warping effect like the ones discussed in the video.

The sphere of light centred at ɣL/2 won't cross ɣL/2 length of track, it will only cross about (ɣL/2)(v/c) = ɣL/10 length of track. This is probably the wrong deduction, and therefore the wrong question but is that the expected contraction; that ɣL/2 should contract to ɣL/10 at 0.8c?

EDIT: how does the roation and orbit of the earht affect the length contraction for both observers?

roosh

@Morbert - as I've mentioned, thanks for taking the time to go through all of this with me. I was thinking that there would be some "chink in the armour" of the thought experiment, but I don't think there is, when allowing the assumption of length contraction; for that I think the Michelson Morely experiment would have to be challenged.

For that I'd need to develop a better understanding of both the MMX and the author's critique of it. I'm currently trying to do that on another forum, so you'll be glad to hear you won't be subjected to providing another remedial physics lesson.

I still have a few questions on SR if you are content to continue with those; there are still a few things I am trying to get my head around - as per some of the questions above.