Visit With Paul Davies on Block Time

[bobc2]

Please forgive another round on the block universe, but I had a brief visit with Paul Davies and wanted to give the folks on the forum a report along with some quotes from his book. Sorry for the lengthy post.

I was at a high school reunion in Phoenix last weekend and was staying with my brother in Tempe, AZ. Paul Davies, author of several physics books (popularizations for the layman), is the Director of the Cosmology and Beyond Center in the physics department at Arizona State University in Tempe. I read again his book, “About Time” (again), during the flight out and was anxious to meet him. I caught him in the middle of a busy schedule, but he was very nice in taking a few minutes to visit and autograph my copy of his book.

I mainly wanted to report for you a sense of his views on the block universe concept that we’ve worked over quite a bit here. It is clear from his book and comments to me that he embraces this concept and feels that most physicists do as well, although he seems to prefer the term, “block time.” I could not get him to buy into the idea that the 4th dimension, X4, is fundamentally of a spatial character, having the same basic spatial nature as X1, X2, and X3.

I asked him, “Given the block universe concept, should we not regard X4 as having a spatial nature rather than thinking of it as a time dimension?” His comment was, “Well, you can think of it that way, but that’s not the world we live in.” I think that is pretty much in line with the thinking of most of our forum members here.

Here are a few quotes from his book on the block time concept:

CHAPTER 2

He has a section in Chapter 2 titled, “Timescape.” Each section has a quote or notable saying under the title. This section has a quote by Einstein that many of you are familiar with, “The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.”

Page 71. Paul Davies writing, “…there is only one rational conclusion to draw from the relative nature of simultaneity: events in the past and future have to be every bit as real as events in the present.”

“The idea that events in time are laid out ‘all at once’ motivated Einstein to write the words quoted at the start of this section.”

Page 72. “If time can be spatialized, at least for the purposes of mathematical representation, then it must be treated as a fourth dimension…”

Page 73, referring to the British scientist Charles Hinton’s 1880 essay “What is the Fourth Dimension” . “Hinton asserts that the now of our conscious awareness is merely a subjective phenomenon…”

Paul Davies writing, “Einstein himself wasn’t too thrilled with the unified spacetime idea at first, dismissing Minkowski’s new four-dimensionality as ‘superflous’ pedantry, but he came around to the idea in due course.”

Page 76. “Spatializing time like this may advance our understanding of physics, but a heavy price has been paid. Human life revolves around the division of time into past, present and future; people will not relinquish these categories just because physicists say they are discredited.”

“This is perhaps what disturbs people most about block time. If the future is somehow ‘already there,’ then we can have no hand in shaping it.

”Weyl once wrote: ‘The world does not happen, it simply is.’ If you believe Weyl, Einstein did; hence the quote at the start of this section, penned in consolation to Besso’s widow following his death (just a few weeks before Einstein’s own.”

“In their professional lives most physicists accept without question the concept of the timescape (block time), but away from work they act like everybody else, basing their thoughts and actions on the assumption of a moving present moment.”

CHAPTER 12

Page 253. “I have already explained how the theory of relativity leads to the notion of block time, and the picture of time as the fourth dimension simply ‘laid out all at once.’ Since Einstein, physicists have generally rejected the notion that events ‘happen,’ as opposed to merely exist in the four-dimensional spacetime continuum.”

“...Oceans (rivers?) of ink have been spilled on the subject, yet still the flow of time is as mysterious as ever, So mysterious, in fact, that philosophers such as Smart have been forced to conclude that there is no river of time. It is, so to speak, all in the mind. ‘Certainly we feel that time flow,’ Smart concedes, but in his opinion, ‘this feeling arises out of metaphysical confusion.’ In fact, he believes it is merely ‘an illusion.’ ”

Page 255. “David Park is a physicist and philosopher at Williams College in Massachusetts with a lifelong interest in a time which he too thinks doesn’t pass. For Park, the passage of time is not so much an illusion as a myth, ‘because it involves no deception of the senses… One cannot perform any experiment to tell unambiguously whether time passes or not.’ “

“When it comes to the truly objective properties of the world, reference to the flow of time appears superfluous.”

Page 260. “Einstein scuttled the notion of a universal now, and pointed the way to ‘block time,’ in which all events—past, present and future—are equally real. To the physicist, human beings of the twenty-fifth century are ‘there’… They are there in the future.”

Paul Davies's views would not be properly represented without his comment on page 283 (the last page):

"In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle concerns the glaring mismatch between physical time and subjective, or psychological time. Experiments on human time perception are in their infancy; we have much to learn about the way the brain represents time, and how that relates to our sense of free will."

"It is my personal belief that we are approaching a pivotal moment in history, when our knowledge of time is about to take another great leap forward. Einstein left us an important legacy. He showed us how time is part of the physical world, and gave us a magnificent theory that interweaves time with space and matter. Throughout the twentieth century, scientists have diligently explored the consequences of Einstein's time, both theoretically and experimentally. In doing so, they have unearthed some unnerving and bizarre possibilites, many of which have turned out to be true. Yet they have also encountered severe obstacles to a full understanding of time, hinting that Einstein's revolution remains unfinished. I believe its completion will prove a major outstanding challenge to twenty-first-century science."

 

[bobc2]

I thought I'd add a quick refresher for those who may not have followed some of the previous discussion on the block universe. The space-time sketch lower left summarizes the motivation for a block universe. Two observers moving relative to each other live in two different 3-D cross-sections of the 4-dimensional universe. They share the same event at the intersection of their two world lines, yet each of their instantaneous 3-D worlds includes two different 3-D instances out of the world line of a third observer. The brown guy has Red at event R2 in his world while the blue guy has Red's event R1 in his world. The third observer (Red) must be a 4-dimensional object for this to be possible.

The sketch on the right depicts a thought experiment in which different observers record data at the various numbered events along their world lines. All observers get together at some later time to compare their data--which will provide experimental verification of a 4-dimensional universe occupied by 4-dimensional objects (including the bodies of the observers). We have to understand more about consciousness and time to complete our knowledge about the 4-dimensional universe.

As Dr. Davies has commented, for physicists, unraveling the riddle of the glaring mismatch between the time of physics and our subjective time is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

 

[harrylin]

Please forgive another round on the block universe, but I had a brief visit with Paul Davies and wanted to give the folks on the forum a report along with some quotes from his book. Sorry for the lengthy post.

Bob, thanks for this very nice and instructive summary!

[..] I mainly wanted to report for you a sense of his views on the block universe concept that we’ve worked over quite a bit here. It is clear from his book and comments to me that he embraces this concept and feels that most physicists do as well, although he seems to prefer the term, “block time.” I could not get him to buy into the idea that the 4th dimension, X4, is fundamentally of a spatial character, having the same basic spatial nature as X1, X2, and X3.

I asked him, “Given the block universe concept, should we not regard X4 as having a spatial nature rather than thinking of it as a time dimension?” His comment was, “Well, you can think of it that way, but that’s not the world we live in.” I think that is pretty much in line with the thinking of most of our forum members here.

Yes indeed; some of those who embrace the block universe concept emphasize nevertheless that there is a physical difference between time and space which is also reflected in the mathematics.

[..] Page 71. Paul Davies writing, “…there is only one rational conclusion to draw from the relative nature of simultaneity: events in the past and future have to be every bit as real as events in the present.”

Well if it means what I think that he means with it (that RoS is proof for "eternalism") then that's obviously wrong, as coincidentally some of us are just now trying to explain under the topic "Relativity of Simultaneity" (and if it doesn't mean that, then I have no clue as to what it could mean!).

[..]“...Oceans (rivers?) of ink have been spilled on the subject, yet still the flow of time is as mysterious as ever, So mysterious, in fact, that philosophers such as Smart have been forced to conclude that there is no river of time. It is, so to speak, all in the mind. ‘Certainly we feel that time flow,’ Smart concedes, but in his opinion, ‘this feeling arises out of metaphysical confusion.’ In fact, he believes it is merely ‘an illusion.’ ” [..] “When it comes to the truly objective properties of the world, reference to the flow of time appears superfluous.”

I agree with that: "the flow of time" must be seen as just a metaphor, time is not a mystery but simply a comparative measure of the progress of physical processes.

Paul Davies's views would not be properly represented without his comment on page 283 (the last page):

"In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle concerns the glaring mismatch between physical time and subjective, or psychological time. [..]

That brings back old memories of being riddled by the concept of "time". However, nowadays there is hardly any mismatch between the physical time that I measure and the subjective time in my head. Perhaps he meant with "physical time" the block universe interpretation of physical time?

Regards,
Harald

 

[yuiop]

...

In Blue's reference frame event 5 is simultaneous with event R1.
In Brown's reference frame event 5 is simultaneous with event R2.

The Block Universe conclusion that events R1 and R2 are simultaneous is in direct contradiction to Relativity, because the the relativity of simultaneity predicts that if two events are simultaneous in one reference frame, then those same two events are not simultaneous in another reference frame that has relative motion. Therefore the Block Universe idea is not compatible with SR.

Time is a difficult concept but one notion of time is that, time is what stops everything happening all at once. The block universe seems to take the view that everything does all happen at once.

 

[bobc2]

Bob, thanks for this very nice and instructive summary!

Yes indeed; some of those who embrace the block universe concept emphasize nevertheless that there is a physical difference between time and space which is also reflected in the mathematics.

Nice to see you jumping in here, harrylin. Good comment. However, if you are referring to the imaginary sqrt(-1), I still think that relates only to the rotation of the X4 axis and is not related to time per se.

Well if it means what I think that he means with it (that RoS is proof for "eternalism") then that's obviously wrong, as coincidentally some of us are just now trying to explain under the topic "Relativity of Simultaneity" (and if it doesn't mean that, then I have no clue as to what it could mean!).

Yes, that is exactly what he means.

I agree with that: "the flow of time" must be seen as just a metaphor, time is not a mystery but simply a comparative measure of the progress of physical processes.

That brings back old memories of being riddled by the concept of "time". However, nowadays there is hardly any mismatch between the physical time that I measure and the subjective time in my head. Perhaps he meant with "physical time" the block universe interpretation of physical time?

Yes, that's exactly what he is referring to--the block time interpretation of physical time.

 

[bobc2]

In Blue's reference frame event 5 is simultaneous with event R1.
In Brown's reference frame event 5 is simultaneous with event R2.

The Block Universe conclusion that events R1 and R2 are simultaneous is in direct contradiction to Relativity, because the the relativity of simultaneity predicts that if two events are simultaneous in one reference frame, then those same two events are not simultaneous in another reference frame that has relative motion. Therefore the Block Universe idea is not compatible with SR.

Hi, yuiop. I think we are having semantics difficulty. Davies has used language like "...all at once" to describe the 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects. What you have said about simultaneity is correct. However, the "all at once" phrase is trying to communicate the concept of 4-dimensional objects.

If you look at a waste baskect sitting over in the corner not moving--it's static as time passes, it is a trivial concept to you to observe that the whole basket is "all there at once." All points throughout the basket exist simultaneously in your perception of a 3-dimensional world. You would have to imagine some hyperdimensional beings observing our 4-dimensional universe, observing that it a static 4-dimensional object. In the block universe view, they would see all of the 4-dimensional objects occupying the static 4-dimensional universe as "all there at once" as time passes for those little green hyperdimensional beings.

Special relativity is not at all incompatible with the block universe concept. It is actually implied from the relativity of simultaneity.

 

[harrylin]

Nice to see you jumping in here, harrylin. Good comment. However, if you are referring to the imaginary sqrt(-1), I still think that relates only to the rotation of the X4 axis and is not related to time per se.

I think that most people agree that however you put it (as sqrt(-1) or as simply a minus term) puts the "time" dimension in a different category as the three "spatial" dimensions. On that point I also agree with Davies.

Yes, that [RoS is proof for "eternalism"] is exactly what he means.

Then you may be interested to participate in the (now almost ended?) thread on Relativity of Simultaneity.


Harald

 

[yuiop]

I find block time distasteful as it implies that everything that will ever happen has in effect already happened. It rules out free will.

As I see it, block time is like a video recording. The ending of the film is predetermined, but we are only aware of the plot up to the point where the tape head is on the tape. Block time has it that some viewers are further ahead in the film but are not allowed to communicate what they know about the "future" to viewers in the "past". Block universe theory seeks to rule out notions of past and future, but does not explain how future events are isolated causally from past events. Let's say I am destined to win the Lottery tomorrow. Block time theory would have it that some fast moving observer is already aware of this fact, so what in block time theory prevents them communicating this fact to me now (along with the winning numbers so that I can be doubly sure the future unfolds correctly)? Block time just seems to be a way to make money from seminars and books without really coming up with any satisfying conclusions or practical applications.

 

[PeterDonis]

Lets say I am destined to win the Lottery tomorrow. Block time theory would have it that some fast moving observer is already aware of this fact

But SR, the actual *theory* (whatever "block time" might say) does *not* say this or imply it. More precisely, the theory of SR allows you to construct a *model* in which "block time" works this way, but it in no way ensures that such a model will give accurate predictions about actual reality.

"Block time" talks about what is in the *simultaneous spaces* of various observers in relative motion. But nobody is "aware" instantaneously of what is going on in his simultaneous space. We are aware only of what is in our past light cones. So only portions of spacetime that have your winning of the lottery tomorrow in their past light cones can be said to be "aware" of it. And none of those portions exist "now", nor are any of them in the simultaneous spaces of anyone "now".

And since our actual knowledge of the actual state of the universe is imperfect, we cannot know for *sure* that you will win the lottery tomorrow, or which observers will later observe that event. We can only extrapolate based on the data we currently have. And we can never have all the relevant data, since, again, we don't have data from our entire simultaneous space, only from our past light cone. And that does not even cover *any* entire simultaneous space; given any spacelike slice, "cut" from spacetime any way you like, our past light cone only intersects a finite portion of it.

So the claim Davies appears to be making about "block time" is in fact false. More precisely, it is true only of a *model* in which we have perfect knowledge of all conditions on an entire spacelike slice, but not of actual reality, in which we do not have such knowledge.

 

[Austin0]

Page 71. Paul Davies writing, “…there is only one rational conclusion to draw from the relative nature of simultaneity: events in the past and future have to be every bit as real as events in the present.”

I certainly understand the logic leading to this conclusion but have to wonder if it is the only possible one.
This would seem to be the case only if you attach real temporal significance to the relative clock readings and operational simultaneity of SR This seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of RoS. The only meaningful simultaneity is regarding events in close proximity.

 

[bobc2]

But SR, the actual *theory* (whatever "block time" might say) does *not* say this or imply it. More precisely, the theory of SR allows you to construct a *model* in which "block time" works this way, but it in no way ensures that such a model will give accurate predictions about actual reality.

But, the block time model does give accurate predictions, because it directly represents geometry based specifically on Lorentz transformations, and taken at face value, SR does imply a block universe. It's just that the concept runs so contrary to our subjective experience.

"Block time" talks about what is in the *simultaneous spaces* of various observers in relative motion. But nobody is "aware" instantaneously of what is going on in his simultaneous space. We are aware only of what is in our past light cones. So only portions of spacetime that have your winning of the lottery tomorrow in their past light cones can be said to be "aware" of it. And none of those portions exist "now", nor are any of them in the simultaneous spaces of anyone "now".

Paul Davies implied that those who rely on this argument to refute block time are in effect solipsists. The block time is not the only concept susceptible to such an argument. Essentially, if you take this position, you cannot validate any reality associated with your current “NOW” event in the universe, because you do not directly experience anything in your simultaneous space—you only experience events communicated from the past via signals just arriving from the past. However, we physicists never discount the reality of our simultaneous 3-D cross-section of the universe just because we do not directly experience it at the instant of our "NOW." We have ample opportunity to validate "NOWS" of the past later on. All experimental data is handled that way--data is acquired from signals arriving from the past, and then we process it later and evaluate the inferences. The logical positivists took things way too far down the path of requiring direct experiences--and they have been marginalized as a result.

But, of course no one is really concerned about this philosophical stumbling block. All of our experimental observations in physics come from past events. Of course, those are events from within your past light cone. You just wait for whatever time is needed to receive that data (we had to wait a long time to get the data on the first super nova). Then, predictions are made about future events, which are then validated at a later time. I have already presented a space-time sketch illustrating a thought experiment making predictions based on the block time model. The predictions are accurate because the block time model represents the geometry associated with the Lorentz transformations.

And since our actual knowledge of the actual state of the universe is imperfect, we cannot know for *sure* that you will win the lottery tomorrow, or which observers will later observe that event. We can only extrapolate based on the data we currently have. And we can never have all the relevant data, since, again, we don't have data from our entire simultaneous space, only from our past light cone. And that does not even cover *any* entire simultaneous space; given any spacelike slice, "cut" from spacetime any way you like, our past light cone only intersects a finite portion of it.

This has nothing to do with the validity of a model. When have physicists ever required knowledge of the universe outside of the light cone of the laboratory to validate a model?

So the claim Davies appears to be making about "block time" is in fact false. More precisely, it is true only of a *model* in which we have perfect knowledge of all conditions on an entire spacelike slice, but not of actual reality, in which we do not have such knowledge.

You have not made your case. Just stating that Davies’s claim about block time is false does not make it false. And your earlier comments have not proven your point. I don’t know why you insist the block time model must have data from outside the light cone of the lab, and data over an entire slice, when we never require that of models.

Having said all that, I must say that I am, at a subjective level, quite sympathetic to the thoughts you've expressed here.

 

[bobc2]

I certainly understand the logic leading to this conclusion but have to wonder if it is the only possible one.

Austin0, I have wondered exactly that same thing for quite a few years. You do have another option if you wish to consider the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) of Lorentz and others. Other forum members have really been working this topic with intensity in another thread (I believe it is still active--I felt like they didn't really need my 2 cents on that one, but I'm finding it interesting). Lorentz's approach attempts to account for the relativity of simultaneity using an absolute fixed ether medium and the results of dynamical interactions which could account for apparent fixed value of c (light speed) for all observers, time dilation and length contraction.

To be honest, although I have read much about the theory, I have not scrutinized it in sufficient detail to offer a valid critique. The theory never seemed to gain traction after Einstein's theory was widely accepted. Einstein seemed to feel like LET was too adhoc.

This would seem to be the case only if you attach real temporal significance to the relative clock readings and operational simultaneity of SR This seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of RoS. The only meaningful simultaneity is regarding events in close proximity.

But, if nature really works like LET, then there would be real temporal significance to the relative clock readings, etc.

 

[Dickfore]

tl;dr

 

[PeterDonis]

But, the block time model does give accurate predictions, because it directly represents geometry based specifically on Lorentz transformations, and taken at face value, SR does imply a block universe. It's just that the concept runs so contrary to our subjective experience.

There is no such thing as "the block time model" as a separate generator of predictions, over and above standard SR; there is the *theory* of SR, with "block time" as one *interpretation* of what the theory is telling us. More precisely, there is the theory of SR combined with the fact that Minkowski spacetime gives a correct geometric model of that theory. That is all that is implied by SR "taken at face value". The "block time model" requires further assertions about the physical meaning of the geometric model, but those assertions are *not* required to give correct physical predictions.

Essentially, if you take this position, you cannot validate any reality associated with your current “NOW” event in the universe, because you do not directly experience anything in your simultaneous space—you only experience events communicated from the past via signals just arriving from the past. However, we physicists never discount the reality of our simultaneous 3-D cross-section of the universe just because we do not directly experience it at the instant of our "NOW."

You are missing my point. I am not saying that the simultaneous 3-D cross-section of spacetime is not "real", or that it is "less real" than the past light cone. I am saying that, until we get light signals from events that are spacelike separated from us "now", we *do not know what happens at those events*. Therefore, we do not know that our *model* of our simultaneous space "now" is *correct*. The "block time" view assumes that it is; that assumption is not valid. Another way of putting this is that the "block time" view requires us to have perfect knowledge and powers of prediction; but we don't.

We have ample opportunity to validate "NOWS" of the past later on.

Or to *refute* them. Sometimes our models are shown to be wrong. The "block time" model does not appear to allow for this possibility.

The logical positivists took things way too far down the path of requiring direct experiences--and they have been marginalized as a result. But, of course no one is really concerned about this philosophical stumbling block. All of our experimental observations in physics come from past events. Of course, those are events from within your past light cone. You just wait for whatever time is needed to receive that data (we had to wait a long time to get the data on the first super nova). Then, predictions are made about future events, which are then validated at a later time.

Or *refuted* at a later time. Once again, you are assuming your predictions will always be right. But they can't always be right, because you don't have all the relevant data to predict from. See next comment.

I have already presented a space-time sketch illustrating a thought experiment making predictions based on the block time model. The predictions are accurate because the block time model represents the geometry associated with the Lorentz transformations.

No, that's not enough by itself. For your predictions to be accurate, you must also have complete information about initial conditions, not just in your past light cone, but in the past light cones of *all* events in the "simultaneous space" that you are predicting. In your example, that would be complete information about all events in the past light cone of Red's worldline up to event R2.

In your example, you just declare by fiat that you have all that information; but in the real world, that's impossible. There could be causal influences coming into Red's worldline from way outside Brown's past light cone at event B, so Brown could not possibly know about them; and those influences could drastically change Red's worldline, so that he didn't even pass anywhere near event R2. Similar remarks hold for events all along Brown's "simultaneous space" at event B.

The "block time model" claims that all the events along Red's worldline are "real"; but how can this claim possibly be justified, when it might turn out that Red's worldline never even passes through those events?

This has nothing to do with the validity of a model. When have physicists ever required knowledge of the universe outside of the light cone of the laboratory to validate a model?

When have physicists claimed that a model gave us accurate knowledge of what is happening "now" at someplace far away? For example, when have physicists claimed that they know for sure what is happening in the Andromeda galaxy "right now" based on extrapolations from light that reached us from there yesterday?

See next comment.

I don’t know why you insist the block time model must have data from outside the light cone of the lab, and data over an entire slice, when we never require that of models.

What is required of models depends on what the models are claiming. The more sweeping and comprehensive a model's claims are, the more we require of it. The "block time" model makes claims about the entire universe; it says that *all* of spacetime is "real all at once", so to speak. Therefore, it is quite proper to require such a model to justify such a sweeping claim. Which it can't, because it can't possibly have all the data required to do so.

 

[bobc2]

There is no such thing as "the block time model" as a separate generator of predictions, over and above standard SR; there is the *theory* of SR, with "block time" as one *interpretation* of what the theory is telling us. More precisely, there is the theory of SR combined with the fact that Minkowski spacetime gives a correct geometric model of that theory. That is all that is implied by SR "taken at face value". The "block time model" requires further assertions about the physical meaning of the geometric model, but those assertions are *not* required to give correct physical predictions.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here. Let me take it one step at a time with a couple of questions about the sketch below. It is a space-time diagram of a muon created in the upper atmosphere of the earth, traveling at relativistic speed to the Earth surface where it is detected in a physics laboratory. I know you are quite familiar with the experiment and understand that without relativistic factors one would not expect the muon to reach the Earth's surface, given its short lifetime. The ability of the muon to actually make it to the Earth's surface becomes clear when viewing the space-time diagram.

Question 1) At the event of the muon creation, would you say that the muon exists in the simultaneous space of the physicist and test lab at t'_A?

Question 2) At the event of the muon creation, would you say that the physicist and lab at event t'_B exist in the simultaneous space of the muon (at the event of the muon creation)?

 

[PeterDonis]

Question 1) At the event of the muon creation, would you say that the muon exists in the simultaneous space of the physicist and test lab at t'_A?

Question 2) At the event of the muon creation, would you say that the physicist and lab at event t'_B exist in the simultaneous space of the muon (at the event of the muon creation)?

Based on the way you are using the word "exist", I would say no. The statement that is in your drawing, "the muon exists as a 4-dimensional object in 4-D spacetime", is, I would say, correct (subject to technical points about in what sense the complete worldline of the muon "exists" in a world of quantum indeterminacy--but that's a separate issue). But that in itself does not require the muon to "exist" anywhere except on its actual worldline. More precisely, from the "block time" perspective, the muon *is* its worldline--it *is* a one-dimensional curve in 4-dimensional spacetime. Saying that the muon "exists in" various simultaneous spaces sounds like saying the muon exists somwhere besides itself, which makes no sense.

In other words, making claims about things existing in each other's simultaneous spaces is really a misstatement of what the "block time" model says. The "block time" model says that the entire 4-D spacetime exists, period. It does not say that individual objects within that spacetime "exist in each other's simultaneous spaces"; that phrase really has no meaning from the "block time" viewpoint. From the "block time" viewpoint, all you can really say is that a certain set of spacelike surfaces all pass through some particular event, such as the event of the muon being detected. But that says nothing about the muon "existing in" those spacelike surfaces; the muon exists as a one-dimensional worldline in 4-D spacetime, and the surfaces exist as 3-D surfaces in the same spacetime, and surfaces all intersect the line. That's it.

 

[bobc2]

Based on the way you are using the word "exist", I would say no. The statement that is in your drawing, "the muon exists as a 4-dimensional object in 4-D spacetime", is, I would say, correct (subject to technical points about in what sense the complete worldline of the muon "exists" in a world of quantum indeterminacy--but that's a separate issue). But that in itself does not require the muon to "exist" anywhere except on its actual worldline.

Of course. The sketch indicates that the muon exists only on its worldline. I could have been more careful about referring to the existence of a 3-D cross-section of a 4-D object within a particular 3-D simultaneous space, but I assumed the context would make it clear.

Actually, I should not have included the statement about the 4-dimensional existence of the muon, since that was to be a final conclusion to be arrived at after establishing the facts about the everyday understanding of objects sharing simultaneous 3-D spaces.

More precisely, from the "block time" perspective, the muon *is* its worldline--it *is* a one-dimensional curve in 4-dimensional spacetime. Saying that the muon "exists in" various simultaneous spaces sounds like saying the muon exists somwhere besides itself, which makes no sense.

Evidently there is no need for me to establish for you the existence of the 4-dimensional muon. That’s good. However, there should be no confusion over the concept pieces of an object existing as well as the entire object existing. For example do you find it confusing to consider the airplane you are looking at on the runway as existing—and then also consider that the left wing of the airplane exists?

I directly observe 3-D objects that are in my current simultaneous 3-D space (hopefully we’ve all been exposed to enough special relativity to understand what we mean by simultaneous space). Those objects exist as 3-D cross-sections of the complete 4-dimensional object.

In other words, making claims about things existing in each other's simultaneous spaces is really a misstatement of what the "block time" model says.

No. On the contrary, the block time model is actually motivated out of an acknowledgment of multiple simultaneous 3-D spaces—a logical outcome of the relativity of simultaneity.

The "block time" model says that the entire 4-D spacetime exists, period.

We are in agreement on this statement--except for your "Period."

It does not say that individual objects within that spacetime "exist in each other's simultaneous spaces"; that phrase really has no meaning from the "block time" viewpoint.

Wrong. That dismisses the bedrock of the block time viewpoint. Again, the block time model depends on multiple simultaneous spaces and the analysis of which 3-D spaces are shared by which 3-D cross-sections of which objects.

From the "block time" viewpoint, all you can really say is that a certain set of spacelike surfaces all pass through some particular event, such as the event of the muon being detected. But that says nothing about the muon "existing in" those spacelike surfaces; the muon exists as a one-dimensional worldline in 4-D spacetime, and the surfaces exist as 3-D surfaces in the same spacetime, and surfaces all intersect the line. That's it.

Why is it so difficult to think of the existence of a small part of a large object? Can I not think of my hand existing? Must I be restricted to referring only to my entire body as existing?

Perhaps our problem here is just one of semantics or word usage.

 

[PeterDonis]

I directly observe 3-D objects that are in my current simultaneous 3-D space (hopefully we’ve all been exposed to enough special relativity to understand what we mean by simultaneous space).

NO YOU DO NOT. Sorry to shout, but you keep on saying this without stopping to think about what you are saying, and it's the crux of my argument against the "block time" view. Taking the above statement as it's given, you are saying that light travels at infinite speed. It does not. You do *not* directly observe 3-D objects in your current simultaneous space. You directly observe 3-D objects in your past light cone. The fact that, under ordinary circumstances, the difference is negligible (light travels about 1 foot per nanosecond, so ordinary light speed time delay is about eight orders of magnitude smaller than the threshold of conscious perception, and about six or seven smaller than the time scale of the underlying neural activity) does not change the principle.

You *construct* your current simultaneous 3-D space by extrapolating observations taken from your past light cone. But that construction cannot possibly be complete or guaranteed to be correct. (Again, the fact that under ordinary circumstances the construction is more than good enough for your everyday activities does not change the principle.) The "block time" argument, taken literally, would require that construction to be complete and correct. So the "block time" argument fails.

That's my position in a nutshell. Note that I nowhere said that objects do not have 3-D cross sections in multiple simultaneous spaces; of course they do. That does not change the fact that all of those multiple simultaneous spaces are constructions, not direct observations, and that the constructions are not complete nor guaranteed to be correct. Nor did I say anything about parts of objects somehow not existing even though all of the objects exist; obviously if a whole object exists, its parts exist as well. But again, that's irrelevant to my argument.

If you have further arguments that directly address the above, I'd be glad to see them. But there's no point in repeating stuff that's irrelevant to the argument. If your position is simply that the construction of the multiple simultaneous spaces is sufficient ground for accepting the "block time" view, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it is.

Perhaps our problem here is just one of semantics or word usage.

I think it's that you haven't been grasping the essence of my position. Hopefully the above makes it clearer.

 

[Austin0]

I directly observe 3-D objects that are in my current simultaneous 3-D space (hopefully we’ve all been exposed to enough special relativity to understand what we mean by simultaneous space).Those objects exist as 3-D cross-sections of the complete 4-dimensional object.

No. On the contrary, the block time model is actually motivated out of an acknowledgment of multiple simultaneous 3-D spaces—a logical outcome of the relativity of simultaneity.
Wrong. That dismisses the bedrock of the block time viewpoint. Again, the block time model depends on multiple simultaneous spaces and the analysis of which 3-D spaces are shared by which 3-D cross-sections of which objects.

Regarding simultaneity and SR I think that a lot of the confusion in this regard is an unfortunate side effect of the conventions of Minkowski diagram graphing. I.e. The angled plane of the hypersurface of simultaneity. This is easily misconstrued as indication of a dichotomy , of two realities.
In actuality this hyperplane is nothing more or less than the coordinate plane of the primed frame under an alias.
In the real world it is superposed on the unprimed plane with complete correspondence. Not metrically but existentially.
Every observer and every spatial point on both frames is absolutely simultaneous with its corresponding point by our only definition of actual simultaneity; Proximate occurence at a single instant.

ALL observers agree on this. There are not two sets of events but rather a unique set of events with two interpretations.
It is only when we take events at separate locations and try to establish a temporal relationship between them that the appearance of temporal disjunction and duality occurs. Of course this endeavor is futile from the onset if you actually accept the basic premise of RoS.And IMO misguided if you attach any significance to any apparent determination.

In simple graphics: AN endless train on an endless track. Passing through time every point on the train is simultaneously occurring with a cojacent point on the track. They may disagree on the rate of coordinate time, spatial metric and clock synchronicity but they agree on this simultaneous local occurence throughout both frames and throughout time.

FOr myself I see no compelling reason not to consider the frames globally simultaneous in occurence. ANd simply consider the disagreement to be a consequence of kinematics and clock convention not necessarily an intersection of actually disjunct time periods.

I am not that familiar with block time but from what I know Peter has accurately described what might be called fundamentalist block time.
You seem to be describing a particular derivation shared by many SR people.

One interpretation of block time is that yes, all world lines are actually existent in their entirety in some hyperdimension but reality (or subjetive reality) still occurs as a globally simultaneous, dimensionless slice through those lines.
One SR version is of course every particle having its own unique slice through the continuum.

A little aside; I recently had occasion to read about Zeno where I found that I had made completely erroneous assumptions regarding his purpose and perspective on his own paradoxes.
It appears that, not only was he seriously arguing the concept of the motionless arrow, but that it was in defence of his mentors, particularly radical, version of block time.
In which, not only is all reality fixed and predetermined, but physics itself, motion, causality etc were actually mere appearences emerging from the passage through this preordered continuum.

Approx. 2300 years and here we are again.

 

[PeterDonis]

from what I know Peter has accurately described what might be called fundamentalist block time.

:rofl: I hadn't quite thought of it this way, but you're right; I'm kind of arguing for a "fundamentalist" view of what we can be sure is "real" or "exists", based on the limitations of our ability to gather information.

 

[ConradDJ]

Regarding simultaneity and SR I think that a lot of the confusion in this regard is an unfortunate side effect of the conventions of Minkowski diagram graphing. I.e. The angled plane of the hypersurface of simultaneity. This is easily misconstrued as indication of a dichotomy, of two realities...

It is only when we take events at separate locations and try to establish a temporal relationship between them that the appearance of temporal disjunction and duality occurs.

The problem with the “block time” concept is that it takes seriously one aspect of Minkowski’s spacetime and ignores the other. It focuses on the fact that spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold, and ignores the different signs of the space and time dimensions.

When we imagine a “block universe”, essentially we’re imagining a 4-space, where the spacetime distance between two events would be the square root of s² + t², with s as the spatial interval in a given frame and t the time-interval. In the geometry of Relativity, the invariant interval between two events is the square root of s² – t². This means that physically, time and space are connected backwards, so distances in space and time cancel each other. Hence the “null interval” between any two points on an observer’s light-cone.

This means not only the geometry but the topology of Relativistic spacetime are completely different from that of a 4-dimensional “block”. And this difference is critical to the way our universe works. Among other things, it guarantees that any set of communicating observers have compatible views of what’s in the past vs. what’s in the future – even though they do not share a common “hyperplane of simultaneity”, and will not agree about the time-ordering of spacelike separate events. But the time-order of these events has no physical significance anyway, since these events can not be causally connected.

To put it another way, the 4-dimensional spacetime of our universe appears to be very special, in that it maintains a strict causal ordering of events among all observers. The future can never physically affect the past, and no one can ever witness something that’s in someone else’s future, and tell them about it before it happens to them.

So unlike most multidimensional spacetimes we could imagine, our universe behaves as though the “flow of time” were real and fundamental... even though there’s no such thing as physical simultaneity between distant events.

The key point is that whenever we draw a diagram with time on one axis and space on the other, we need to keep in mind that this is not how space and time are physically connected. Obviously these diagrams are useful, but they can also be misleading.

 

[ConradDJ]

... by our only definition of actual simultaneity; Proximate occurence at a single instant.

Here's a link to an interesting paper that reconceives simultaneity in physical terms, relating to the world on the observer's past light-cone. This is quite different from our usual notion of objective simultaneity, which doesn't work in Relativity unless events are proximate. But it does describe how distant events are physically "present" to each other in real time.

Hanoch Ben-Yami -- "Apparent Simultaneity"

 

[bobc2]

NO YOU DO NOT. Sorry to shout, but you keep on saying this without stopping to think about what you are saying, and it's the crux of my argument against the "block time" view.

I knew very well what I was saying. It’s just that when talking about simultaneous spaces it is quite common to speak in terms that technically are not correct; but we always do this when we expect that those who know relativity understand by the context what we mean. Otherwise the discussion is very tortured as we continue trying to keep the distinction between “what we actually observe” and the instantaneous 3-D simultaneous space of special relativity.

Of course we do not observe our instantaneous simultaneous space. But nevertheless we operate on the assumption that there actually exists a real objective 3-D world out there at the “NOW” instant, an external world inhabited by real 3-D objects (albeit 3-D cross-sections of complete 4-D objects—and again we try to avoid tortuous discussions that are careful to maintain the knowledge that “3-D objects” correspond to cross-sections of 4-dimensional objects).

I’ve repeated the point suggested by Einstein, and many other physicists since (such as Paul Davies), that to not acknowledge the reality of the simultaneous space is to succumb to solipsism. Einstein warned about that.

But, yes. You are correct in saying that we never observe objects in our simultaneous space—we must wait for whatever transmitted signals are available. I’ve just bypassed that detail, thinking it to be a trivial aspect compared to the thrust of our discussion.

Taking the above statement as it's given, you are saying that light travels at infinite speed. It does not. You do *not* directly observe 3-D objects in your current simultaneous space. You directly observe 3-D objects in your past light cone. The fact that, under ordinary circumstances, the difference is negligible (light travels about 1 foot per nanosecond, so ordinary light speed time delay is about eight orders of magnitude smaller than the threshold of conscious perception, and about six or seven smaller than the time scale of the underlying neural activity) does not change the principle.

Again, all of that is taken for granted and doesn’t seem to me to get in the way of understanding the context in which we discuss the simultaneous space of the physicist in our sketch that includes the event of muon creation—and then the simultaneous space of the muon in that same sketch at the event of its creation.

You *construct* your current simultaneous 3-D space by extrapolating observations taken from your past light cone.

This is the way all theories and laws of physics are tested—after the fact. We wait for the measurement signals to arrive in the test apparatus, wait for transducers to transmit the data into an analog-to-digital converter, wait for the digital data to be translated by digital firmware, wait for the data to be transferred to computer memory, wait for the data to be scaled and post-processed, and wait for the data to be displayed on the computer screen, then wait for the photons to travel to our eye retina, then wait for signals to travel to the relevant neurons in our brain, etc. We always get our data after the fact, and then apply logic to reconstruct the physical process under study. We try to avoid as much as possible the continual commentary of all the details that would be needed if we were always having to be concerned about someone wanting an accounting of all those details.
Today I was measuring a force transient associated with an impact in which the time of contact between the impactor and the aluminum target was about 60 microseconds. Along with knowledge of the modes of vibration of the target structure and acquisition of the accelerometer signal, I had no qualms about constructing the behavior of the objects involved. And even though I could not “really” directly observe those objects in my simultaneous space (the motions were too fast and displacements too small—and of course I had to wait for the information to arrive at my brain), the existence of the objects in my simultaneous space and their behavior was validated after the fact, reconstructing the process based on data and physical theory.
You can nit-pick details of the muon experiment, but I think your concerns are trivial within the train of logic we’ve applied here.

But that construction cannot possibly be complete or guaranteed to be correct. (Again, the fact that under ordinary circumstances the construction is more than good enough for your everyday activities does not change the principle.)

Why? We make a straight forward application of the theory of relativity along with various experiments. Remember the experiment of my earlier sketch, where multiple observers were continually video taping and gathering other kinds of data while making their various relativistic trips—and finally all getting together to compare notes and construct (after the fact) the history of events—an experiment that validated the 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects. Are you questioning the relativity of simultaneity? Are you implying that the muon experiments are not evidence in the validation of the theory of special relativity?

Are you rejecting the block time because you feel that alternative theories like Lorentz Ether Theory are more valid? Or are doing it in favor of some philosophy? I know I’ve mentioned before about my doctoral curriculum philosophy of physics course and the professor who actually denied the existence of the classroom next to his until he had occasion to go down the hall and open the door.

The "block time" argument, taken literally, would require that construction to be complete and correct. So the "block time" argument fails.

No. No theory has ever required the complete construction. Physicists, after centuries of experimentation and analysis, are confident that we can assume a universe model in which matter is made of the same building blocks and follows the same laws throughout the universe. We don’t need complete constructions in the sense you imply. Much of the evidence is confined to the lab, and observations of a relatively few samples of astronomical objects are performed in building the picture of reality. The block time argument is logical and consistent with the theory of special relativity. How many muon experiments and speed of light experiments would you require to satisfy yourself of the validity of special relativity and relativity of simultaneity?

That's my position in a nutshell. Note that I nowhere said that objects do not have 3-D cross sections in multiple simultaneous spaces; of course they do. That does not change the fact that all of those multiple simultaneous spaces are constructions, not direct observations, and that the constructions are not complete nor guaranteed to be correct. Nor did I say anything about parts of objects somehow not existing even though all of the objects exist; obviously if a whole object exists, its parts exist as well. But again, that's irrelevant to my argument.

O.K. So, where are we? How about answering these questions:

1) Would you say that the 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-D objects is at least consistent with special relativity?
2) What kind of observations and experiments would you require to validate the block time theory?

If you have further arguments that directly address the above, I'd be glad to see them. But there's no point in repeating stuff that's irrelevant to the argument. If your position is simply that the construction of the multiple simultaneous spaces is sufficient ground for accepting the "block time" view, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it is.

I think it's that you haven't been grasping the essence of my position. Hopefully the above makes it clearer.

I’ve pretty much made my points if you have. Maybe we are at the point of agreeing to disagree.

 

[PeterDonis]

Of course we do not observe our instantaneous simultaneous space. But nevertheless we operate on the assumption that there actually exists a real objective 3-D world out there at the “NOW” instant, an external world inhabited by real 3-D objects (albeit 3-D cross-sections of complete 4-D objects—and again we try to avoid tortuous discussions that are careful to maintain the knowledge that “3-D objects” correspond to cross-sections of 4-dimensional objects).

And that assumption (my emphasis) is precisely the point at issue. You just take it for granted, which is fine if you're just constructing theoretical models to make predictions. But if you are going to make the claims about "reality" or "existence" that the "block time" model makes, you can no longer just help yourself to this assumption; you have to convert it from an assumption to a proved statement, and you can't. That has been my point all along.

I’ve repeated the point suggested by Einstein, and many other physicists since (such as Paul Davies), that to not acknowledge the reality of the simultaneous space is to succumb to solipsism. Einstein warned about that.

If this is your argument for converting the assumption to a proved statement, it's not sufficient. I'm not saying anything about whether or not the simultaneous space is "real". I'm saying it's a construction, not a direct observation. You clearly agree with that.

But, yes. You are correct in saying that we never observe objects in our simultaneous space—we must wait for whatever transmitted signals are available. I’ve just bypassed that detail, thinking it to be a trivial aspect compared to the thrust of our discussion.

It is not at all trivial; as I've said several times now, it's the crux of the discussion, which is why I keep objecting when you try to just ignore it.

This is the way all theories and laws of physics are tested—after the fact.

But all the actual physical predictions are the same whether you accept the "block time" claims or not. You accept those claims; I don't. But we agree on every single physical prediction in all the models you have presented. I have never said any of those predictions were wrong. (I have said, several times, that the predictions are based on complete knowledge of initial conditions, which we can't have in the real world; but in your thought experiments, we *do* have it, because you constructed the thought experiment scenarios. And given those initial conditions, the predictions are of course correct.) The "block time" claims are *interpretations* of what the standard SR model means, over and above the model itself and its predictions. So talk about how the predictions can be validated is irrelevant, since it tells us nothing about which interpretation is "right".

Are you implying that the muon experiments are not evidence in the validation of the theory of special relativity?

Of course not. I'm saying that the muon experiments validate the theory of SR, *not* the interpretation of "block time" that is put on it. The theory is consistent with multiple interpretations, and experiments do not tell you which one is "right".

No theory has ever required the complete construction.

No theory has, but a particular intepretation of a theory might.

The block time argument is logical and consistent with the theory of special relativity.

Yes, it is. But it is not *required* by the theory of SR. Davies, in what you quoted, certainly appeared to me to be making the stronger claim (as did Brian Greene in the talks that have been quoted in a number of threads on PF). It's only the stronger claim that I'm arguing against.

1) Would you say that the 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-D objects is at least consistent with special relativity?

Yes, of course. I never said it wasn't.

2) What kind of observations and experiments would you require to validate the block time theory?

There aren't any that could as it stands, because this "theory" (I would call it an "interpretation") does not make any physical predictions on its own. It just takes all the physical predictions of standard SR and puts a particular interpretation on them. If somebody were to come up with a physical prediction that was made differently on the "block time" assumption than on some other assumption consistent with standard SR, then we could construct two "extension" theories from standard SR, one using the "block time" assumption and one using the other assumption, derive the different predictions, and run an experiment to see which one was right. But nobody has done that, nor do I know of anyone working on it, certainly not Paul Davies or Brian Greene.

 

[Austin0]

But, the block time model does give accurate predictions, because it directly represents geometry based specifically on Lorentz transformations, and taken at face value, SR does imply a block universe. It's just that the concept runs so contrary to our subjective experience..

Are you suggesting that SR doesn't require transcending our subjective experience.??:
Or that anyone with understanding of SR would reject a hypothesis on that basis??

Paul Davies implied that those who rely on this argument to refute block time are in effect solipsists. The block time is not the only concept susceptible to such an argument. Essentially, 1) if you take this position, you cannot validate any reality associated with your current “NOW” event in the universe, because you do not directly experience anything in your simultaneous space—you only experience events communicated from the past via signals just arriving from the past. However, we physicists never discount the reality of our simultaneous 3-D cross-section of the universe just because we do not directly experience it at the instant of our "NOW." 2) [B]We have ample opportunity to validate "NOWS" of the past later on. [/B]All experimental data is handled that way--data is acquired from signals arriving from the past, and then we process it later and evaluate the inferences. .

1 ) If you are talking about a singe observer then I would say that is quite true.
Not because you cannot experience it instanty in its entirety ,but because it is fundamentally indeterminable outside of the operational definition.

2) I would say that this is quite untrue. You can construct a coordinate picture based on equivalent clock readings after the fact, but to consider this a valid picture of a past "NOW" is unwarrented. This could only be true if you assume absolute or actual simultaneity.
Replacing the old concept of a global absolute simultaneity with a simultaneity limited to your frame but essentially still absolute.
I am not suggesting that there is no objective reality or that there is no possibility of an actual simultaneous space but only that , like other absolutes;velocity etc there is no way to determine this.

I knew very well what I was saying. It’s just that when talking about simultaneous spaces it is quite common to speak in terms that technically are not correct; but we always do this when we expect that those who know relativity understand by the context what we mean.
Of course we do not observe our instantaneous simultaneous space. But nevertheless we operate on the assumption that there actually exists a real objective 3-D world out there at the “NOW” instant, an external world inhabited by real 3-D objects (albeit 3-D cross-sections of complete 4-D objects— .

I wouldn't disagree with there being a "NOW" out there but question that it would necessarily coincide with the "now" as calculated by system clocks.

I’ve repeated the point suggested by Einstein, and many other physicists since (such as Paul Davies), that to not acknowledge the reality of the simultaneous space is to succumb to solipsism. Einstein warned about that. .

I have no real argument with the block time concept. But as it is ,like all other time concepts , beyond determination, I don't consider it a necessary condition for SR
But I am curious as to what compelling logic would lead to its non-acceptance being justifiably considered solipsism?
I haven't heard any so far.

 

[bobc2]

Are you suggesting that SR doesn't require transcending our subjective experience.??:

I’m not sure what you mean by “transcending”, but to the extent that one includes the block universe concept as a part of special relativity theory, then it seems that you would have to abandon your convictions that you cause things to happen, or that masses accelerate because they are acted upon by forces. Given the four-dimensional universe concept those ideas are subjective illusions—however “stubborn and persistent” as Einstein would say.

Or that anyone with understanding of SR would reject a hypothesis on that basis??

Are you questioning whether I think anyone who accepts the logic of the block universe as valid logic would still reject the block universe concept because of his deeply ingrained feeling about free will and f = ma? Yes, I think that some may reject the block universe concept on that basis. I personally have trouble actually believing the block universe concept even though I can’t find fault with the logic. I think Paul Davies was on target when he identified the glaring conflict between the block universe concept and our life experience as one of the major problems confronting physicists.

1 ) If you are talking about a singe observer then I would say that is quite true.

What are you saying is true? That you cannot validate any reality associated with your current “NOW?” Or that we physicists never discount the reality of our “NOW” simultaneous space?

Not because you cannot experience it instanty in its entirety ,but because it is fundamentally indeterminable outside of the operational definition.

Not all physicists are operationalists by a long shot. We don’t have to have an instantaneous observation of external objects in our simultaneous space to understand that there are objects out there in our simultaneous space.

2) I would say that this is quite untrue. You can construct a coordinate picture based on equivalent clock readings after the fact, but to consider this a valid picture of a past "NOW" is unwarrented.

To consider this a valid picture of a past “NOW” is warranted. We do it all of the time in physics.

This could only be true if you assume absolute or actual simultaneity. Replacing the old concept of a global absolute simultaneity with a simultaneity limited to your frame but essentially still absolute.

We have relativity of simultaneity in special relativity. The laws of physics are the same and the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their velocities with respect to each other. A Lorentz reference frame may be associated with each observer. At a given instant of time, the reference frame for a given observer is associated with a physical 3-dimensional space that is a cross-section of the 4-dimensional space. This “NOW” simultaneous space includes the observer along with other observers and objects occupying the space at that “NOW’ instant. It’s a simple straight forward concept that does not need to be muddled by philosophical operationalism.

I am not suggesting that there is no objective reality or that there is no possibility of an actual simultaneous space

I was thinking that maybe you just did.

but only that , like other absolutes;velocity etc there is no way to determine this.

Again, as in all physical experimentation, the details of configurations of objects and processes in the sequence of simultaneous spaces are accounted for after the fact. Of course it is impossible to gather information about the state of a simultaneous space right at the “NOW” instant.

I wouldn't disagree with there being a "NOW" out there but question that it would necessarily coincide with the "now" as calculated by system clocks.

Are you concerned with the precision of the clocks or what? Precision issues have no impact on the reality of different simultaneous spaces for different observers. You wouldn’t deny the time dilation feature of special relativity just because it’s not possible to validate the phenomena with a time deviation of less than 10^-100 sec precision.

I have no real argument with the block time concept.

You seem to have had a quite forceful argument against block time from your statements here.

But as it is ,like all other time concepts , beyond determination, I don't consider it a necessary condition for SR

Here is why it is necessary.

Example: The world lines of observers A and B intersect at some event e1. Event e1 is a “NOW” instant for both observer A and observer B—they share this “NOW” at event e1.
An observer C is in observer A’s simultaneous space at event e2. Observer C is also in observer B’s simultaneous space at event e3.

Observer A acknowledges the physical reality of observer B (as they pass). Observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer A. Observer A also acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e2. But, observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e3.

Since observer A acknowledges the reality of observer B he must now also acknowledge the reality of observer B's simultaneous space which includes the reality of observer C at event e3. That is, observer A (who understands special relativity and the relativity of simultaneity) acknowledges that the simultaneous space of B is just as valid as his own simultaneous space. Likewise, observer B acknowledges the reality of A’s simultaneous space and the physical presence of C at event e2.

But I am curious as to what compelling logic would lead to its non-acceptance being justifiably considered solipsism?
I haven't heard any so far.

If one subscribes to the concept that there is no justification for knowledge of the existence of external objects at a “NOW” instant for an observer (only objects in the past light cone are real), then that observer exists all by himself at the “NOW” instant. Then, the observer taking that as a fact of reality is evidently a solipsist. In other words, that observer always perpetually exists only at the apex of his light cone—nothing else in his simultaneous space can be validated as real, because anything that could potentially be "out there" in his simultaneous space would be outside of his light cone.

 

[PeterDonis]

Here is why it is necessary.

Just to make the alternative position clear, I'm going to comment on how it is *not* "necessary". Please note that that does not mean the "block time" viewpoint is *wrong*--only that it is not *necessary*.

The world lines of observers A and B intersect at some event e1. Event e1 is a “NOW” instant for both observer A and observer B—they share this “NOW” at event e1.

Ok so far.

An observer C is in observer A’s simultaneous space at event e2. Observer C is also in observer B’s simultaneous space at event e3.

You have not given a precise meaning to the phrase "in the simultaneous space"; but it is obvious what meaning you are implicitly giving it. The meaning you are implicitly giving it is: "event e2 on observer C's worldline must be real because it is in observer A's simultaneous space; event e3 on observer C's worldline must be real because it is in observer B's simultaneous space".

However, the above is not *known* to A and B at event e1. All that is *known* to them at event e1 is the portion of observer C's worldline that lies in event e1's past light cone. The above is *consistent* with that knowledge, but it is not made *necessary* by it. Indeed, the above may well turn out to be *wrong*, because a causal influence may reach C at some event outside the past light cone of event e1, which changes C's worldline so that it does not pass through events e2 and e3, but through some other events instead. There is no way to rule out this possibility, because the past light cone of event e1 does not contain enough information to do so.

So an alternative viewpoint, which is also consistent with what is *known* to A and B at event e1, is this: "if observer C continues on the worldline that he is predicted to follow based on the information in the past light cone of event e1, his worldline will intersect observer A's simultaneous space at event e2, and observer B's simultaneous space at event e3."

Observer A acknowledges the physical reality of observer B (as they pass). Observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer A.

Again, OK so far.

Observer A also acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e2. But, observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e3.

Only if observers A and B *assume* that C follows the worldline he is predicted to follow based on the information in the past light cone of e1. This is certainly *consistent* with that information, but it is not *required* by that information; indeed, it cannot possibly be guaranteed by that information alone. So it is not *necessary* for observers A and B to acknowledge any such thing. They can if they want to, and be consistent with the information they have at event e1; but they are not *required* to. (And indeed, if they *do* acknowledge it, they may be acknowledging something which will turn out to be false--see below.)

And this is where your argument breaks down; everything you argue from here depends on the assertion that A and B are *required* to acknowledge the reality of events e2 and e3. If they are not *required* to do so, as indeed they are not, your argument fails. The "block time" view is *consistent* with SR, but it is not *required* by it.

If one subscribes to the concept that there is no justification for knowledge of the existence of external objects at a “NOW” instant for an observer (only objects in the past light cone are real),

Where in any of the above did I say that only objects in the past light cone are "real"? I have said nothing about what is "real" and what is not. I have merely pointed out that A and B's knowledge at event e1 is incomplete; it may be wrong. C's worldline may end up not even passing through events e2 and e3.

You are the one who keeps asserting that certain events are "real", but in doing so you are putting yourself in the position of asserting that events are "real" that may never actually happen. This seems to me to be rather an odd position to take.

 

[PeterDonis]

Are you questioning whether I think anyone who accepts the logic of the block universe as valid logic would still reject the block universe concept because of his deeply ingrained feeling about free will and f = ma?

I should also comment on this. It is quite true that both SR and GR, as *theories*, are completely deterministic. However, that does *not* mean that reality must be deterministic. In fact, most physicists believe that it is not, because of quantum mechanics. However, a key element of the argument that SR *requires* "block time" appears to be that SR is deterministic; so it really seems to me that Davies' argument for "block time" is based on confusing our models of reality with reality itself.

In fact, quantum mechanics also has an equivalent of the "block time" viewpoint--the "sum over histories" viewpoint, where instead of looking at quantum amplitudes for various ways that an object could "evolve" in "time", we look at quantum amplitudes for various possible complete histories that a system could have. If we do this on a large scale, we are basically looking at quantum amplitudes for different possible 4-D spacetimes that are all consistent with some set of initial or boundary conditions--i.e., amplitudes for different possible "block time" scenarios. So even if we just look at models, it does not seem to me that "block time" requires determinism.

 

[Austin0]

Are you questioning whether I think anyone who accepts the logic of the block universe as valid logic would still reject the block universe concept because of his deeply ingrained feeling about free will and f = ma? Yes, I think that some may reject the block universe concept on that basis. I personally have trouble actually believing the block universe concept even though I can’t find fault with the logic. I think Paul Davies was on target when he identified the glaring conflict between the block universe concept and our life experience as one of the major problems confronting physicists..

I think the above is the crux. Like the Many Worlds concept,Presentism, et al; It is neither logically determinable nor refutable because it is outside of empirical physics and its derived logic. SO if you accept or flatly reject it it is utimately a matter of belief not logic.

What are you saying is true? That you cannot validate any reality associated with your current “NOW?” Or that we physicists never discount the reality of our “NOW” simultaneous space?.

The first

Not all physicists are operationalists by a long shot. We don’t have to have an instantaneous observation of external objects in our simultaneous space to understand that there are objects out there in our simultaneous space..

This is purely a straw dog. I cearly stated that instantaneous knowledge was not the issue.

I don't even think it is relevant to this question.

Neither is the question of whether or not there is an objective world out there (which I think there is ) the actual issue. The issue is simply the meaning of "simultaneous space".

This attempt to imply that questioning your (block time) interpretation of simultaneous
space is equivalent to denying the existence of other entities is simply uncalled for.

To consider this a valid picture of a past “NOW” is warranted. We do it all of the time in physics..

Physicists do it all the time without a thought as to whether that now they determined by looking at their clocks had any implication of being absolutely simultaneous.
If they agree with the principles of SR they would deny any actual temporal meaning in the sense you are talking about.

We have relativity of simultaneity in special relativity. The laws of physics are the same and the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their velocities with respect to each other. A Lorentz reference frame may be associated with each observer. At a given instant of time, the reference frame for a given observer is associated with a physical 3-dimensional space that is a cross-section of the 4-dimensional space. This “NOW” simultaneous space includes the observer along with other observers and objects occupying the space at that “NOW’ instant. It’s a simple straight forward concept that does not need to be muddled by philosophical operationalism..

Thank you bob2 for this helpful information even if it all seems strangely familiar.

I obviously agree with it all but the question of the red bolded statement bears clarification.

You seem to interpret this "NOW" as being absolutely or actually simultaneous , am I incorrect in this evaluation?

If that is the case then it is far from being "a simple straight forward concept" and is actually the heart of the issue being introduced in a neat circular fashion.

SO could you explicitly state your meaning and interpretation of this statement??

AS for the "muddling by philosophical operationalism" I find this somewhat amusing as the operationalism comes directly from the RoS and the only philosophy in this discussion is Block Time

Are you concerned with the precision of the clocks or what? Precision issues have no impact on the reality of different simultaneous spaces for different observers. You wouldn’t deny the time dilation feature of special relativity just because it’s not possible to validate the phenomena with a time deviation of less than 10^-100 sec precision..

Please . Of course were not talking about the mechanism of the clocks

Here is why it is necessary.

Example: The world lines of observers A and B intersect at some event e1. Event e1 is a “NOW” instant for both observer A and observer B—they share this “NOW” at event e1.
An observer C is in observer A’s simultaneous space at event e2. Observer C is also in observer B’s simultaneous space at event e3.

Observer A acknowledges the physical reality of observer B (as they pass). Observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer A. Observer A also acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e2. But, observer B acknowledges the physical reality of observer C at event e3.

Since observer A acknowledges the reality of observer B he must now also acknowledge the reality of observer B's simultaneous space which includes the reality of observer C at event e3. That is, observer A (who understands special relativity and the relativity of simultaneity) acknowledges that the simultaneous space of B is just as valid as his own simultaneous space. Likewise, observer B acknowledges the reality of A’s simultaneous space and the physical presence of C at event e2. .

WHy do you think that this is significant or proof of anything? You are basing your inferences on the idea that in SR simultaneity is transitive which is totaly incorrect according to the principles of SR itself.

If one subscribes to the concept that there is no justification for knowledge of the existence of external objects at a “NOW” instant for an observer (only objects in the past light cone are real), then that observer exists all by himself at the “NOW” instant. Then, the observer taking that as a fact of reality is evidently a solipsist. In other words, that observer always perpetually exists only at the apex of his light cone—nothing else in his simultaneous space can be validated as real, because anything that could potentially be "out there" in his simultaneous space would be outside of his light cone.

SInce I never even mentioned light cones and explicitly stated that I actually expect that there is an actual simultaneity but questioned that it would coincide with the constructed simultaneity as derived from our synchronized clocks, this is just another misdirected argument. Having absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said or in fact think.

 

[harrylin]

Bob, just a general comment: For some of us it's easy to debunk the necessity of the block universe as we know at least one alternative model that also works. I guess that for you it would be helpful to better understand the Lorentz model, as knowing the points on which those models differ would help you to quickly pinpoint the logical errors.

 

[bobc2]

Bob, just a general comment: For some of us it's easy to debunk the necessity of the block universe as we know at least one alternative model that also works. I guess that for you it would be helpful to better understand the Lorentz model, as knowing the points on which those models differ would help you to quickly pinpoint the logical errors.

Good point, harrylin. If LET works then I must certainly abandon my logic leading to the block universe. I've reviewed the Lorentz model casually in recent years, but it has been quite a few years since studying it in any depth. Back then my impression was that the Lorentz ether theory was discounted and that most physicists ignored it. It seems like I remember something to the effect that Lorentz had acknowledged that Einstein took away his ether.

But, you make a good point, and I should probably be examining the theory with due diligence before waxing so confidently about the logic of the block universe.

 

[bobc2]

First of all, Austin0, in looking back over my posts, they seem to be a little confrontational, and I didn't mean them to be. I appreciate the way folks here have focused on the issues and avoided the personal barbs.

I think the above is the crux. Like the Many Worlds concept,Presentism, et al; It is neither logically determinable nor refutable because it is outside of empirical physics and its derived logic. SO if you accept or flatly reject it it is utimately a matter of belief not logic.

Yes, you've put your finger on the fundamental question--whether one can logically arrive at the block universe as a necessary requirement of special relativity. I'm still doggedly clinging to the idea that you can logically demonstrate this requirement. However, I have obviously not presented the logic that is satisfactory to you and the others.

You seem to interpret this "NOW" as being absolutely or actually simultaneous , am I incorrect in this evaluation?

Yes, the "NOW" is simultaneous in the context I've used the term. That is, in consideration of the relativity of simultaneity each observer (among those having differing velocities relative to each other) has a different "NOW" within the 4-dimensional space-time continuum. Each "NOW" (among the various observers) cuts across a different cross-section of the 4-dimensional space. Within this context observers live in what we regard as our normal 3-D world. An observer passes thru a continuous sequence of "NOWs" as time passes.

If that is the case then it is far from being "a simple straight forward concept" and is actually the heart of the issue being introduced in a neat circular fashion.

SO could you explicitly state your meaning and interpretation of this statement??

AS for the "muddling by philosophical operationalism" I find this somewhat amusing as the operationalism comes directly from the RoS and the only philosophy in this discussion is Block Time

We're probably not understanding each other here. It just seems to me that the everyday world we experience is an adequate prototype of the 3-D world (simultaneous space) of special relativity--aside from the tortured language necessary to account for the time delays associated with transmission times of signals informing us about what is going on in our world (sound transmission delays, light transmission delays, etc.). We have the ability to take all this into account in constructing our picture of the world.

WHy do you think that this is significant or proof of anything? You are basing your inferences on the idea that in SR simultaneity is transitive which is totaly incorrect according to the principles of SR itself.

In what sense do you apply the term transitive to this aspect of the discussion?

SInce I never even mentioned light cones and explicitly stated that I actually expect that there is an actual simultaneity but questioned that it would coincide with the constructed simultaneity as derived from our synchronized clocks, this is just another misdirected argument. Having absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said or in fact think.

I only inserted the comments on solipsism because you inquired specifically about solipsism.

 

[Austin0]

Yes, you've put your finger on the fundamental question--whether one can logically arrive at the block universe as a necessary requirement of special relativity. I'm still doggedly clinging to the idea that you can logically demonstrate this requirement. However, I have obviously not presented the logic that is satisfactory to you and the others..

I would never suggest you give up this quest, its always possible it might gain insights even if there might not be a proof to be had

Yes, the "NOW" is simultaneous in the context I've used the term. That is, in consideration of the relativity of simultaneity each observer (among those having differing velocities relative to each other) has a different "NOW" within the 4-dimensional space-time continuum. Each "NOW" (among the various observers) cuts across a different cross-section of the 4-dimensional space. Within this context observers live in what we regard as our normal 3-D world. An observer passes thru a continuous sequence of "NOWs" as time passes..

Even if the concept of each individual having a uniques now is true which is a valid interpretation of SR , this still does not necessarily imply there is any absolute or actual temporal meaning to this other than as a relationship of the proper times of clocks..

We're probably not understanding each other here. It just seems to me that the everyday world we experience is an adequate prototype of the 3-D world (simultaneous space) of special relativity--aside from the tortured language necessary to account for the time delays associated with transmission times of signals informing us about what is going on in our world (sound transmission delays, light transmission delays, etc.). We have the ability to take all this into account in constructing our picture of the world..

Forget transmission time etc,etc,et, as I said that is not germaine to the question.

remember your talking about the problem of getting beyond common experience to be able to accept block time?
Well you can comfortably live your life feeling you share a common simultaneity with the world comoving around you and this may ultimately be true.
I have no certainty regarding any particular model of time or simultaneity, but I have a very strong cetainty that Einstein was right about our perceptions and instruments, utter incapability to determine the truth of the matter in any actual or absolute sense.
TO me this doesn't mean stop thinking about absolutes but simply starting with an understanding of what the limits of our knowledge of them are.

In what sense do you apply the term transitive to this aspect of the discussion?.

The normal.
If A=B and B=C then A=C... valid in many logical constructions.

You are proposing:

[ X is simultanous to Y]and [Y is simultaneous to Z] implies [X is simultaneous to Z]

Which is not valid in SR

 

[harrylin]

[..] my impression was that the Lorentz ether theory was discounted and that most physicists ignored it. It seems like I remember something to the effect that Lorentz had acknowledged that Einstein took away his ether.

But, you make a good point, and I should probably be examining the theory with due diligence before waxing so confidently about the logic of the block universe.

It was discounted by many on philosophical grounds, and by some due to mistaken reasoning (or both). And while Lorentz did say something to that effect, it was meant as criticism on how Einstein presented the theory.

However, as Einstein's derivation was simpler than his own, he simply referred his students to Einstein's derivation (although with the above-mentioned criticism). In case that you are familiar with Einstein's 1905 paper: not long ago I presented a few subtle points of reformulation of that paper as I imagine would have been to the taste of Lorentz. The result is essentially what many people call "LET":
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3756233#post3756233
Note also the addendum in that post: the simplest and most straightforward is to start with the light postulate as meant by Maxwell, and the rest remains quite the same.

I hope that it will be clear; but if not, we should start it as a separate topic (or perhaps there is still an open, existing thread on that topic).

 

[Last_Exile]

Hi,

I have been following this thread with some interest, having just read Paul Davies book It's About Time.

Einstein essentially abolished the Newtonian concept of a universal *now* which was the same for everybody with his introduction of Special Relativity and opened up the possibility of a "block time" where a person's experience of *now* depended on their relative motion. There was no distinction between past and future - all time existed at once.

However, we know that a photon, traveling at c does not experience time.

Does this not mean that a newly-created photon could travel across a Universe essentially frozen in time and that this would constitute a universal *now*?

I could imagine a stream of newly-created photons each making own their way across the Universe within their own *now* which we , forced to travel at less than c, experience as a flow of time.

Unfortunately, I lack the mathematic skills to present this formally and have no wish to present mere speculation but any comment regarding its plausibility would be welcome.

Thanks.