the Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Problem of Time

Fourier wrote: »

But it's not assumed, it is derived from the isotropic constancy of the speed of light.

Fourier wrote: »

This point has been made several times to no avail. Simultaneity is not assumed, it is derived from the isotropic constancy of the speed of light.

This is not an assumption of the theory of relativity. Repeatedly saying it is, when it clearly is not, is pointless. Any textbook on relativity shows the constancy of c isotropically for all observers is the main assumption. Simultaneity in the form you are talking about is derived, not assumed.

I thought I had forgotten to reply to you post above, but I see you're just restating a point I already addressed to which you subsequently replied. I'll try to clarify again.

You're saying that it is not assumed, that it is derived, but I think you must be conflating the mathematical description used to make predictions with the observational evidence used to verify those predictions. Yes, the value T/2 - for both events - might be derived mathematically from the chosen coordinate system but it isn't derived from observation.

This mathematical derivation represents a prediction of the theory. Indeed, it is an essential prediction required for one of its most fundamental conclusions, that of RoS; yet, it is a fundamentally untestable prediction according to the very foundational assumptions of the theory itself - rendering that part of the theory unfalsifiable!

So, the derivation you talk of is simply a prediction. As said, it is not derived from obervation. The veracity of this mathematically derived prediction must be assumed that is, the key foundational observation, pertaining to RoS, must be assumed i.e. we have to assume that the clocks do actually read T/2 for both events.

Again, what is derived is a prediction. The accuracy of this - critical - prediction is what is assumed. So the theory predicts RoS and the conclusion is assumed!



It's a bit like assuming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the initial conditions of the Universe and then saying that derivations about the current state of the Universe, from that, somehow add validity to conclusions about the FSM's role in the current state of the universe.

Morbert wrote: »

If you want to use a thought experiment to interrogate a physical theory as it is normally presented, it's vital that you relate your thought experiment to the physical theory to be interrogated. You have made a number of statements above, none of which follow from the theory of relativity applied to this thought experiment. According to relativity:

i) She has no problem reconciling Bob's observations with any and all assumptions she makes.
ii) She entirely agrees with Bob's observations.
iii) She does not have to conclude the clocks are both synchronised and not synchronised.
iii) She does not have to conclude the light beams struck the clocks simultaneously and non-simultaneously

All the reasoning you've carried out around the thought experiment has been reasoning from premises at odds with relativity.

That part of the argument is somewhat separate to the primary conclusion that is drawn. It is more along the lines of the Einsteinian interpretation conflicting with itself, but it isn't necessary.

The primary conclusion is that the simultaeity of [clock synchronisation] evens in the stationary system is not supported by observational evidence. The theory makes a critical prediction about the time value on two physical clocks which is entirely untestable by the foundational assumptions of the theory. This accuracy of this prediction - upon which the Relativity of Simultaneity rests - must thereore be assumed. Rendering that aspect of the theory unfalsifiable - but still, clearly requiring the conclusion to be assumed.

Morbert wrote: »

As Fourier mentions: RoS is a consequence of the orthodox theory of relativity, not a postulate of it. It only has to be assumed by Alice if she starts with some other theory, and she wants to include it later in some ad hoc manner.

As a consequence/conclusion of the the theory, predicated on the basis of a prediction about the reading on two physical clocks, a prediction which is untestable under the foundational assumptions of the the theory itself, a prediction whose accuracy must be assumed to be true, it is a consequene/conclusion which is assumed and indeed unfalsifiable under the foundational assumptions of the theory itself.

Again, just to reiterate, it is entirely based on circular logic.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand this question: The normal interpretation says "the time from one emitter to clock A does not equal the time from emitter to clock B" is a frame-dependent claim.

I'm asking about the alternative interpretation.

Morbert wrote: »

You're still using terms in your reasoning that aren't theory-neutral. E.g. You say simultaneity is not supported by observational evidence. But according to the theory of relativity, Alice will indeed observe simultaneous events under the standard of measurement specified by her frame of reference. This is what simultaneity means in the context of relativity. If, instead, you mean simultaneity in some non-relativistic sense (like absolute simultaneity), then sure there won't be observational evidence, but that's one of the lessons of relativity.

She won't observe the reading on her co-located, physical clock which coincides with the pertinent events i.e. the photons making physical contact with the clocks she is trying to synchronise.

She is forced to assume that the prediction made - in accordance with her specified frame of reference - that the same reading on her co-located, physical clock coincides with both of the pertinent events - this is partly what simultaneity means in the physical world. The foundational assumptions of the theory render this prediction untestable. Meaning this prediction, about the relevant reading on a physical clock face, must be assumed to be true - hence the conclusion is assumed.

The claim as to what Relativity says that Simultaneity is, how it derives predictions, etc. etc. can be reframed in any infinite number of ways, it won't change the fact that in the real-world experimental set-up, the necessary observation simply cannot be made - the foundational assumptions of the theory preclude this possibility! It has to be assumed to be true!

Morbert wrote: »

The most charitable way I can read this paragraph is: RoS follows from relativity, and the postulates of relativity are assumed over the postulates of some other alternative theory that makes the same predictions as relativity.

Am I reading it correctly?

It's the same point that has been repeated throughout and again above.

Relativity makes a prediction about the reading on a physical clock coinciding with 2 events. This observation cannot - not even in principle (given the foundational assumptions of the theory - see the light clock convention) - be verified. It is instead assumed to be true i.e. the prediction made about a physical clock is not, nor can it be, observed; it is assumed. The conclusion of RoS rests entirely on this assumption.

The coordinate system is the map; the experimental set-up is the territory; the map is not the territory. The map has a picture of the Loch Ness Monster drawn in, over Loch Ness. None of the observational evidence contradicts the map but there is no observational evidence that Nessy be in them there waters. The key of the map says that Nessy has to be assumed to be in the lake. The conclusion that Nessy is in the lake is therefore circular.

Fourier wrote: »

The mathematics of the effective coordinate transformations is unchanged, but the metrical structure of the underlying space is different.

No, I'm referring to it retaining a different underlying geometric structure. One which doesn't respond to curvature the same way and doesn't give the same symmetry for particles.

How is the underlying metrical structure determined?

Morbert wrote: »

Relativity makes predictions about what will happen if Alice places a detector equidistant between two locations (defined by the standards of measurement outlined by her frame of reference), and registers signals from simultaneous events at those locations (defined by the standards of measurement outlined by her frame of reference).
...
More importantly, the above also affirms my suspicion that what you mean to do is argue that no observation can distinguish between special relativity and some other alternative theory that makes all the same predictions about what we will observe, and that special relativity also contains superfluous assumptions that are dropped in simpler alternatives. But you have misidentified the offending assumption as relativity of simultaneity, as opposed to, say, the universal speed of light.

Note the assumption in the emboldened part, that the events are simultaneous in the given frame. That they are "defined by the standards of measurement outlined by her frame of reference" is simply a restatement of the idea that the synchronisation of clocks must be established by definition i.e. that it must be assumed. It is simply restating what we already have stated about what the Einsteinian interpretation assumess.

It is from the standards of measurement defined by her frame of reference that we can derive the prediction about the configuration of the pysical system, which predicts that the reading on a clock [colocated with the observer], corresponding to a value of d/c, will coincide with two events at spatially separted clocks.

That prediction is, under the foundational assumptions of the theory itself, untestable/unverifiiable. Therefore, the prediction must be/can only be assumed to be correct. The conclusion of RoS hangs on the thread of this prediction/assumption.

It might also be worth pointing out that the interpretation of "Length Contraction" under the Einsteinian interrpretation also rests entirely on the assumption that clocks in the stationary system are synchronised.


As I said, frame it anyway that you like. The basic fact remains, there is no empirical observation that can be made to verify (or falsify) the claim that the clocks in the given frame are synchronised. The conclusion of RoS rests entirely on this claim.

It would be like Alice’s belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the initial conditions of the universe. Then, all empirical evidence demonstrates where the initial conditions of the universe came from and there is no sign of the FSM. If Alice’s thesis says that we must establish by definition that the FSM created the initial conditions i.e. we must assume that the FSM created the initial conditions, then of course she will conclude that the FSM is responsible for the universe in its current configuration (derived from the initial conditions). The empirical observation of a Universe in its current configuration will not contradict her story about the FSM being responsible for the current configuration of the Universe. However, the totality of empirical evidence demonstrating where the initial conditions came from (with no sign of the noodly appendage of the FSM) certainly contradicts her assumption. Richard Dawkin’s might use the term “delusional” to describe Alice’s beliefs.

As it cannot be verified/falsified, it can only be assumed. Given that the totality of empirical evidence demonstrates that the clocks onboard the spaceship are not synchronised, the conclusion of frame dependent simultaneity i.e. the conclusion of RoS hangs entirely the assumption that the clocks onboard the spaceship are synchronised (from the perspective of the comoving observer). Without this assumption, on the part of the comoving observer, the conclusion of RoS simply isn't reached. Thus, the conclusion of RoS that simultaneity is frame depedent, that simultaneity is relative is entirelly assumed i.e. it rests entirely on circular reasoning.

Again, if a map of the territory says we must assume that the Loch Ness Monster is in Loch Ness, but all empirical observation (including underwater footage of Loch Ness)

Morbert wrote: »

There are projects out there attempt to formulate a theory of relativity with weaker assumptions (like Hsu's "extended relativity", which drops the speed of light postulate and uses Edwards transformations instead of Lorentz transformations). It's great that these projects exist, but it's not automatically the case that these alternatives make equivalent predictions, or are as easily generaliseable as special relativity. Special relativity has been, hands down, the most successful project to date in these matters.

So while any single prediction-observation pair will not uniquely specify a correct theory over all alternatives, you won't be able to use Occam's razor against relativity unless you demonstrate an alternative is just as successful over a wide range of observations.

Cheers, I will check those out.

Without wanting to get sidetracked, before resolving the main issue of contention thus far:

We can substittue the Einteinian interpretation of "the constancy of the speed of light" for an interpretation that says the measurement of the speed of light will always return the same value.

If we examine Einstein's interpretation of the constancy of light speed, his interpretation doesn't say that the measure the speed of light, conducted by each observer [relative to themselves] will always return a value of c. His thought experiment can be used to demonstrate how each oberver's attempt to measure the speed of light will yield the same value - without resorting to time dilation or length contraction (in the Einsteinian sense).

What the Einsteinian interpretation does is interpret the constancy of the speed of light to mean that all observers will fit their observations to the idea that the speed of light to is constant relative to themselves and relative to all other observers.

If Alice measures the speed of light relative to herself she will get a value of c. If she measures it relative to Bob she will get a value of c - v. If she observes Bob attempting to measure the speed of light, she will see that his slowly ticking clock biases his result "conspiring" to give him the same value for the speed of light.

That is one way in which it could be interpreted. Simply that Bob's clocks conspire to give him the same mesurement for the speed of light. We don't need to rely on any dynamics to explain this or to rely on any asbolute reference frame.

The Einsteinian interpretation goes further. With "time" dilation implying that Alice can somehow square her measurement of the speed of with an idea that the speed of light is constant relative to all observers. While this is not expressly stated, we can derive it.

I wil be offline for the next 3-4 weeks as I am doing a meditation retreat in Thailand and Malaysia, so you guys don't have to reply immediately - assuming that you choose to reply at all.

Before I sign off for a few weeks, I want to again express my gratitude for the time you guys have taken to engage in discussing the ideas. Either one of us (me) or all of us will be the richer because of it (figuratively speaking, in terms of acquiring knowledge).

Morbert wrote: »

The frame-dependent description of two clocks as synchronised follows deductively from the postulates of special relativity and the application of the Einstein synchronisation procedure. Even if we cannot carry out an experiment involving the clocks that distinguishes special relativity from some alternative, simultaneity is not assumed. Alice's confidence in special relativty would have come from its broad predictive power, its practical successes, and the simplicity of its postulates.

This would only amount to Flying Spaghetti Monster circular reasoning if Alice assumed special relativity, concluded simultaneity, and concluded special relativity based on simultaneity. She does not do this.

The fact that no experiment can be carried out to verify the synchrony of the clocks means precisely that the simultaneity of the [clock synchronisation] events must be assumed. It may follow deductively from the postulates but so too does the prediction about the clock reading that is supposed to co-incide with both events. Einstein even talks about something similar in the 1905 paper when he talks about the train arriving at 7 O'Clock, with the arrival of the train being simultaneous with the time on the watch. Given that this prediction cannot be validated experimentally, empirically speaking, its accuracy can only be assumed.

The presence of an alternative explanation for the actual observations Alice makes, only serves to demonstrate that the contention - the clocks in her system are synchronised - is an assumption.

Morbert wrote: »

Broadly speaking, there seems to be two ways you could do this: i) Adopt some instrumentalist interpretation that treats special relativity like a recipe for making predictions about what we will observe. ii) Construct a formalism not based on a universal speed of light postulate that reproduces all the success of special relativity with simpler commitments.

Your thesis attempts ii), but it doesn't give special relativity a fair shake, as it misrepresents Alice's conclusions as explained in a previous post.

In the paper - I still use the word "paper" for want of a more accurate term - I definitely don't flesh out the issues pertaining to the Einsteinian interpretation fully, or the alternative interpretation I have in mind. That is largely down to my lack of experience in constructing arguments in a rigorous manner from the outset. It is through disscussions like this that I flesh out the ideas - another reason I am grateful for yer engagement. I have had a bit of time to try and clarify my thoughts on the alternative interpretation, which might [hopefully] help to illuminate my thinking.
I say its an LP style interpretation to differentiate it from the Einsteinian interpretation, but the interpretation I have in mind doesn't presuppose an Ether or absolute reference frame. There are 2 ways I have been thinking about this, one is the LP route, the other is the SR route. I'm not sure which works best for explanatory purposes, but I will try the LP route first.

Removing the Ether
Lorentz and Poincare were trying to develop a constructivist theory which is why they were so intent that there must be an Ether. The Ether however was undetectable in the theory and as such could simply be removed to leave an absolute reference frame. This effectively leaves us with a kinematical intepretation, albeit with an undetectable absolute reference frame.

Removing the absolute referene frame
We can think of the absolute reference frame as a sort of scaffolding that we can later remove. We need it, in this case, only for the psychological purposes of helping us to imagine a scenario in which Alice's clocks are not synchronised in her own frame.

Poincare used the absoute reference frame to define the motion of two subsequent reference frames. With the motion of each, defined relative to the absolute reference frame, he then derived the Lorentz transformation for the transfer of co-ordinates between those two frames.

With this done, and with the absolute reference frame being undetectable, we can simply remove the "scaffolding" and we are left with the two relatively moving frames, with their local, unsynchronised clocks, where length contraction is an issue of measurement arising from the non-synchronised clocks.

If we go the Einsteinian route, we simply drop the assumption that clocks in the "stationary system" are synchronised. This is obviously the simpler route, theoretically, but when Special Relativity has become inuitive, it might run into cognitive resistance.

Relativity of Simultaneity
As has been mentioned, there are two parts to the conclusion that simultaneity is reltaive/frame dependent; the first part - "events which are simultaneous in one frame i.e. the "stationary" frame" - cannot be verified experimentally and so it must be assumed. This is borne out by the possible alternative intepretations. The second part - "are not simultaneous in relatively moving frames" - is based on empirical observation - insofar as the thought experiment represents and idealised experiment.

The alternative interpretation simply drops the untestable assumption/prediction.

Length Contraction
If we think about "the Ladder Paradox" and think about how it is resolved. Obviously, it cannot be resolved on the basis of empirical observation, because there could be no possible way that an observation of the ladder both fitting inside the garage and not fitting inside the garage could be made. In the physical world, it would be a paradox. Instead, it is resolved on the basis of the disagreement over clock synchronisation.

This is precisely how the [actual] LP interpretation would see the issue resolved, as an issue pertaining to clock synchronisation. What then is the difference? It's that the Einsteinian interpretation adds the extra assumption pertaining to the synchony of the clocks and gives rise to the idea of real, reciprocal length contraction. Again, it just involves the same additional, untestable assumption about clock synchronisation.

Time Dilation
I was having trouble with this for a while, until I realised that it actually provides the justification for a preferred/privileged reference frame.

If we think back to how Poincare derived the formula for the Lorentz contraction, he started with the absolute reference frame and then had two reference frames moving relative to that. For the sake of this discussion, lets imagine that each reference frame was moving relative to the absolute frame with the same relative velocity. Essentially, both clocks tick slowly by the same amount.

If we imagine Alice and Bob in those frames each with their light clock. Each would see the photon in their clock travel the perpendicular distance between the mirrors. Alice would see the photon in Bob's clock travel the longer, diagonal distance. However, unbeknownst to her, the photon in her clock is also traveling the same distance. This means that the duration of her "tick-to-tock" (perpendicular distance) is the same as Bob's "tick-to-tock" diagonal distance. This would mean that she doesn't actually see Bob's clock tick slower; she would either conclude that light travels faster for Bob or that the photon in her clock is also traveling the longer distance.

This would make it seem that the LP interpretation doesn't actually predict "time dilation" at all. Indeed, it would be an issue if such an obseration were possible. It would however, be an even bigger issue for the Einsteinian interpretation if such an observation were possible, because the paradox of reciprocal contractions would be laid bare.

Instead, we need only think about how the Twin Paradox is resolved and the Hafele-Keating experiment is conducted. In both cases, the clocks must be reuinited in a single reference frame and the differences in elapsed times compared. This has the effect of privileging the reference frame in which the clocks are reunited. It isn't that nature privileges a reference frame, we, as experimenters must privilege a reference frame as a matter of operational necessity. Indeed, any reference frame could, in theory, be chosen as the "privileged" reference frame meaning that it isn't really all that privileged. Of course, there exists a class of reference frames which we can subject to accelearation more readily than others.

As a further matter of operational necessity, a reference frame is privileged when it is chosen as the reference frame in which to define the units of measurement that we use in experiments. For us, that is obviously the reference frame of the Eearth - be that the atomic clocks in Colorado or Greenwich.

It needn't be that difficult to see. Just put yourself in Alice's shoes. You are located at the mid-point between two clocks; you have your own clock; you send out a light pulse from the mid-point to each clock. Can you be sure that the light pulses reached each clock simultaneously? Can you be sure that as your clock read the time d/c, the light pulses were making physical contact with the other two clocks?

You know that you can't be sure. You know that you cannot verify this empirically. You know, therefore, if you make any statement whatsoever, to the effect that the clocks are synced - in a frame dependent manner or otherwise - you are making an assumption.

Simply by virtue of the fact that you haven't observed it.

Morbert wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by this.

Presumably, either Alice is agnostic about special relativity and adopts seemingly arbitrary assumptions about auxiliary hypotheses re/ clock synchronisation to arrive at it as the correct theory.

Or Alice, being well versed in physics as a discipline, accepts the postulates of special relativity with a high degree of confidence and interprets the theory in a sound and consistent manner.

Or Alice, being well versed in physics as a discipline recognises that there are contradictory theories/interpretations.

She does the sync procedure and the light signals return simultaneously. She looks at the two interpretations and thinks:
"My clocks might be synced, or equally, they might not be. The evidence is inconclusive. I cannot be sure that they are synced. If I conclude that they are synced, without having observed it, then that is a conclusion which I am assuming to be true - precisely bcos I haven't obseerved it, I haven't verified it empirically"

Morbert wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "conclusional assumption". It is an uncontroversial inference from the postulates of relativity, as is relativity of simultaneity.

However, it is a controversial (and unjustified) inference from the available empirical evidence.

Conclusional assumption as opposed to foundational assumption.

Morbert wrote: »

Why? Lots of theories make all sorts of predictions about observations we cannot make.

If the assumptions of those theories form a critical part of their conclusions then they too assume their conclusions.

It is possible to interpret relativity in such a way as not to assume conclusions.

Morbert wrote: »

We are beginning to go in circles.

If Alice accepts special relativity, she does not say "my clocks might be synced, or equally, they might not be". She instead infers clock synchronisation as a frame-dependent description. She infers it with good reason (the unparalleled success of relativity as a scientific theory). Describing it as an assumptions implies she cannot justifiably assert it. But she can justifiably assert it, based on the remarkable success of special relativity.

Except that the remarkable success of Special Relativity is equally the remarkable success of those mathematically and empirically equivalent theories. Check out a paper titled:
On the Empirical Equivalence between Special Relativity and Lorentz’s Ether Theory by Pablo Acuna. I have attached a copy here. Acuna argues in favor of SR saying the two can be distinguished on the basis of empirical evidence, but he outlines how the two theories are equally "remarkably successful".

Given this empirical equivalence, Alice doesn't simply accept Special Relativity, she is skeptical of it. She sees two empirically equivalent interpretations, one which says that the clock syncing events were simultaneous in her frame, the other which says they weren't. Therefore, she concludes, "my clocks might be synced, or equally, they might not be, I simply cannot make that determination on the basis of the empirical evidence".

Given that a critical part of the conclusion of RoS includes a statement about the simultaneity of [clock syncing] events, in her frame, coupled with the fact that she cannot determine the truth of that statement empirically, she therefore, can only assume the truth of it. Assuming the truth of that statement assumes a critical part of the conclusion of RoS.

The finite speed of light is sufficient to demonstrate that she cannot make an empirical observation of the clock syncing events, and so, can only assume its validity.

Morbert wrote: »

If by "all available evidence" you mean the observations made during this experiment and this experiment alone, sure. But nobody would claim that special relativity, clock synchronisation, or relativity of simultaneity is established by this experiment and this experiment alone.

If, instead, special relativity is a well-established theory, then the inference is uncontroversial and justified.

Except for the fact that the mathematically and empirically equialent competing theories, which make the opposite claim, are equally well-established (by the empirical evidence).

This thought experiment allows us to make further deductions about the different interpretations.

Fourier wrote: »

The isotropic constancy of the speed of light is the assumption Einstein makes, he does not assume synchonisation. This has been explained to you multiple times and is blatantly obvious if one knows the theory mathematically. There is no point continuously asserting that they are assuming synchronisation.

The mathematics of the theory is not being questioned. Indeed, the underlying mathematics is the same for the Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation as well as the Michael Tooley interpretation. So, the issue clearly cannot lie in the mathematics.

Neither of the two aforementioned interpretations incorporate RoS, so, given that they both employ the same mathematics, RoS cannot be a consequence of the mathematics.

You only need to put yourself in Alice's shoes and imagine you are carrying out the syncing experiment. You have your clock, you send the light signals to the two spatially separated clocks. As your the time ticks away on your clock and the reading d/c appears, ask yourself, where are the two light signals?

Are they making physical contact with the spatially separated, physical clocks onboard your spaceship? How can you verify this? The fact that the speed of light is finite means that you cannot verify it.

If you choose to assume that the time (as measured by the clock in your hand) from you to the clock at A is equals the time (as measured by the clock in your hand) from you to the clock at B, then yes, you will conclude that the clock syncing events are simultaneous.

If you choose to assume that the reading [d/c] on the clock in your hand coincides with the clock syncing events (where the physical light signals make physical contact with the physical clocks) then yes, you will conclude that the clocks are synced, in your frame.

Note the assumptions upon which the conclusion rests.

The issue is that you and Morbert are taking Einstein's sync convention as given and then working to show the internal consistency of SR. The problem is that the consistency of SR is not the point being contested and the validity of the sync convention is not a given.

Fourier wrote: »

Here we have two options. That the world is described by Minkowski spacetime because that is the actual structure of the world (Einstein's view ultimately) or that the Minkowski structure is an illusion of the underlying dynamics. There's no real reason to go with the latter. One can make the same statement about any physical theory, is there really an electric field or is it just an illusion due to how some objects move for other reasons.

Poincaré showed that Lorentz‘s theory can be formulated in the four-dimensional geometric language that Minkoswki developed in 1908.

From the paper I posted to Morbert

From Wolfgang Rindler's Relativity: Special, General, Cosmological

This length contraction is no illusion, no mere accident of measurement or convention. It is real in every sense. A moving rod is really short! It could really be pushed into a hole at rest in the lab into which it would not fit if it were not moving and shrunk....We cannot and need not know the details of all this, but we know a priori that there must be a detailed mechanical explanation of the shortening.
...
Add to that that if the world wasn't really Minkowskian particles would operate differently. The "illusion" argument only works with Special Relativity in isolation. If the world isn't really Minkowskian it is very difficult to explain why particles work as they do.

If one takes the position that Minkowski spacetime is the actual structure of the world then one must give up the notion of relative motion, bcos reelative motion cannot happen in the frozen structure of Minkowski spacetime.

Fourier wrote: »

It's the actual mathematical geometric structure of the true space/spacetime. How particles behave is then a result of the symmetry group of the true space/spacetime. They won't operate based on an illusory one, only the geometry of the true one. This is why I find this "illusion of the dynamics" argument hard to believe.

Another contribution that Poincare made to Lorentz‘s theory was a mathematical result: he showed that the Lorentz transformations form a group. A collection of transformations constitute a group if they are associative, if there exists an identity transformation, if the transformation obtained through two successive applications of a transformation in the collection is also a transformation in the collection, and if there exists an inverse transformation. By demonstrating the last property Poincaré showed that the Lorentz transformations are symmetrical.

Is that the symmetry group you are referring to,or is it a different one?

If so, bare in mind that I am advocating the removal of the absolute reference frame. Go down the SR route and employ a two-way light principle as opposed to one-way. No absolute structure reqired, same mathematics.

Fourier wrote: »

I've looked over your posts and I see you have been arguing about Relativity for ten years without ever reading a textbook on Relativity. Instead reading multiple discursive monographs with little mathematics by people with alternate views. Wouldn't it be better to just read a standard college textbook on the subject so that you actually understand the mathematics of what you are arguing against.

The mathematics isn't the question. Given the same mathematics is employed by the different interpretations.

Fourier wrote: »

This is my final post on the topic.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it this far.

Maybe this will help to clarify the issue.

Alice and Bob are both in the one spaceship, with the 3 clock set-up (they are located with the middle clock).

Bob proposes a wager, he bets that the light signals will take the same amount of time to travel to each clock and that the light signals arrive at the spatially separated clocks at the exact moment their shared clock reads d/c.

Alice agrees, proposing a counter bet, she bets that the light signal will take a longer time to travel to the clock on the left than on the right, but that on the return leg, the opposite will be true.

Both bet that the light signal will return simultaneously to them.


How do Alice and Bob determine who wins the bet? Bare in mind Alice is unlikely to simply grant Bob his premises and vice versa.

Fourier wrote: »

No, there is nothing in entanglement that has information being transmitted faster than light. This is simple enough to prove if one knows QM. You can show the marginal probabilities for both particles are unaffected.


QM doesn't have these things. QM's conceptualisation of time is not like Newton's.

The background of QM in modern particle theory is explicitly Minkowski spacetime. See the first of Weinberg's three volumes on the Quantum Theory of Fields.

To address the QFT shaped feather in the cap of relativity.

Problem of localization in a quantum field theory. Schroedinger’s equation evolves wave- functions in a non-local way, so there seems to be a problem with superluminal propagation.

...

Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But [special and] general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there.

Perimeter Institute Roundtable Discussions
square brackets are my own addition.

Current versions of quantum field theory do a fine job explaining how individual particles or small systems of particles behave, but they fail to take into account what is needed to have a sensible theory of the cosmos as a whole.

Lee Smolin Time Reborn p.142

Relativity gives nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to quantum size, eventually descending to infinite values in its description of gravity. Likewise, quantum mechanics runs into serious trouble when you blow it up to cosmic dimensions. Quantum fields carry a certain amount of energy, even in seemingly empty space, and the amount of energy gets bigger as the fields get bigger. According to Einstein, energy and mass are equivalent (that’s the message of E=mc2), so piling up energy is exactly like piling up mass. Go big enough, and the amount of energy in the quantum fields becomes so great that it creates a black hole that causes the universe to fold in on itself. Oops.

Guardian article

The root of all the evil was clearly special relativity. All these paradoxes resulted from well-known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam—its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity.

João Magueijo Faster than the Speed of Light p.250

despite the successes of quantum field theory, many physicists, beginning with Einstein, have wanted to go beyond it to a deeper theory that gives a complete description of each individual experiment--which, as we have seen, no quantum theory does. Their searches have consistently found an irreconcilable conflict between quantum physics and special relativity.

As long as we’re just checking the predictions of quantum mechanics at the level of statistics, we don’t have to ask how the correlations were actually established. It is only when we seek to describe how information is transmitted within each entangled pair that we need a notion of instantaneous communication. It’s only when we seek to go beyond the statistical predictions of quantum theory to a hidden-variables theory that we come into conflict with the relativity of simultaneity.

To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer’s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest.  And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer--call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.
End of story.

In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion.

This is our choice. Either quantum mechanics is the final theory and there is no penetrating its statistical veil to reach a deeper level of description, or Aristotle was right and there is a preferred version of motion and rest.

This means giving up the relativity of simultaneity and embracing its opposite: that there is a preferred global notion of time. Remarkably, this does not require overthrowing relativity theory; it turns out that a reformulation of it is enough. The heart of the resolution is a new and deeper way of understanding general relativity theory which reveals a new conception of real time.

Lee Smolin Time Reborn p.142
Italics are mine.

“If anything, people underappreciate the extent to which quantum mechanics just completely throws away our notions of space and locality [the notion that a physical event can affect only its immediate surroundings]. Those things simply are not there in quantum mechanics,” Carroll says.
...
We don’t even know what time is.”

Sean Carroll

With regard to Tooley's statement about the completeness of Relativity:

And relativity, can it be considered complete? Well, if nonlocality is really real, as widely supported by the accounts summaries in this article, then all complete theories should have a place for it. Hence, the question is: ”Does relativity hold a place for non-signaling nonlocal
correlations?”.

Nicolas Gisin (2018) Can relativity be considered complete? From Newtonian nonlocality to quantum nonlocality and beyond

We can reason further. If QFT does indeed incorporate RoS, then it too must assume the conclusion, because the simultaneity of events cannot be determined in the "stationary system".

Fourier wrote: »

We both get what you are talking about and have from the start. Different interpretations of the mathematics of a theory are well known from QM. It's simple enough to understand. The problem is you don't understand how interpretations are structured.

I'm not convinced that ye do know what I'm talking about bcos [as we can further see below] ye both retort with arguments demonstrating the self-consistency of Einsteinian relativity, when the self-consistency isn't in question.

Fourier wrote: »

I think it's almost impossible for you to make progress on this because you just don't understand this basic point. You're also introducing a sharp distinction between "empirical deductions" and mathematical ones, where as physics is about making empirical conclusions via mathematical deduction by encoding empirical statements as mathematical facts, i.e. your division indicates you don't really understand how physics works. Mathematics is used as a way of reasoning about physical facts, one more succinct and accurate than using long word arguments.

Empirical statements are encoded mathematically and conclusions are derived via mathematical deduction.......and then those conclusions are subjected to empirical testing to see if they correspond to the physical world.

RoS isn't an empirical statement bcos it cannot be tested empirically. The one-way SoL isn't an empirical statement bcos it cannot be tested empirically [yet or possibly ever]. RoS is a consequence of the one-way SoL, so the chain of events you outline above is completely disregarded in Einsteinian relativity.

You may perhaps be familiar with the Conventionality Thesis which essentially states that simultaneity of events in a single inertial frame is assumed.

Fourier wrote: »

Einstein makes the physical/ontological assumption of the isotropic constancy of the speed of light. This is easy enough to encode mathematically. Using mathematics one can then derive RoS. Continuing on one can derive the rest of the mathematical structure of Relativity.

What happened to "encoding empirical statements as mathematical facts", here we have an ontological assumption being encoded as a mathematical fact..

Essentially you are saying, RoS is a part of Einstein's relativity and Einstein's relativity is self-consistent.

That is not the contention. The contention is that the conclsuion that a model of the physical world which incorporates RoS requires us to assume the conclusion that RoS represents an accuarate model of the physical world.

It's the Loch Ness Monster/Flying Spaghetti Monster issue. Both interpretations might be internally consistent, but concluding that they are accurate models of the physical world requires that conclusion to be assumed.

Fourier wrote: »

Basically his stages are:
(1) Ontological presumptions encoded in Mathematics (e.g. Isotropic constancy of speed of light)
(2) Basic ontological consequences derived mathematically (Ros)
(3) Empirically accessible facts derived mathematically from (2).

Other interpretations only share the mathematics of (3), but there are other mathematical statements found in (2) that they don't agree on. Thus we can have derived mathematical facts that aren't common between interpretations, i.e. those in stage (2). Einstein does not however assume RoS as it is in (2) and not in (1).

Again, where are the empirical statements that are encoded as mathematical facts?

Those ontological consequences derived mathematiclly in (2) represent predictions about the physical world i.e. they are statements about the nature of the physical world. The fact that RoS is not included in (3) means that it isn't "empirically accessible" i.e. it is untestable.

An untestable conclusion which follows from an untestable assumption does not acquire ontological status just bcos it is "derived" from an assumption. It simply makes it unfalsifiable.

The empirical success of Einstein's theory would offer it major support if it weren't for the fact that the empirical verification applies equally to other interpretations that completely contradict RoS - meaning that there is no empirical support for RoS. As you highlght, it is not "empirically accessible". This means that, if a model that includes RoS is to be accepted then that conclusion must be assumed to be true.

Fourier wrote: »

What makes your proposal hard to accept is that it just takes (3) as given and views it in another way. You don't actually demonstrate your dynamics from which the Minkowski structure emerges as an illusion.

I'm advocating for a different interpretation which would retain the Minkowski structure but jettison the assumed conclusion of RoS.

I think part of the problem might lie in the assumption that Minkowski Spacetime necessitates RoS, when that doesn't appear to be the case. Poincaré's derivation of the mathematics demonstrates this and we can reason this from the employment of an emprical statement which should be easily encoded as a mathematical fact i.e. a roundtrip SoL principle.