Is spacetime independent of its universe?

[Seminole Boy]

Something is throwing me here.

No matter how fast one is going, relatively speaking, one is in the same universe as everyone (and everything) else. We're all going through the same spacetime, albeit at different velocities. You're in the same universe as I am and we both see the same space, light, and bikinis.

If what I've already said is wrong, it makes me believe the universe itself is an idea that has no absolute form. Because, regardless of different speeds of motion, if we are "trapped" in the same universe and going through the same "spacetime", how can time dilation make any sense? For time dilation to make sense, it's almost like we're altering the universe by virtue of our speeds through it.

WannabeNewton is in a spaceship (working on some huge equation that would take me 6,000 years to understand) and is going fast.

The Great One (Peter Donis) is in a spaceship (flexing his muscles) going very fast.

I'm in a spaceship (and throwing the ball for my golden) going very, very fast.

However, we're all in the same universe and we're all going through the same spacetime.

Unless our relative speeds are creating different universes (I'm sure I'm not saying this exactly right, but work with me), I don't see how the speeds matter.

Is spacetime independent of the universe in which it's understood?

 

[Mentz114]

For time dilation to make sense, it's almost like we're altering the universe by virtue of our speeds through it.

I doubt if you know what time dilation is, so it is bound not to make sense to you.

Is spacetime independent of the universe in which it's understood?

Does the universe not encompass everything ? That was the usual definition when I last checked.

 

[Fredrik]

I don't understand the question in the title. What I can tell you is this:

SR defines a mathematical structure that we call spacetime. Each specific theory of matter and interactions in the framework of SR is defined by a specification of the matter content of spacetime.

Velocity matters because the numbers displayed by clocks are not the time coordinates of the events on the clock's world line in some specific coordinate system. If a clock displays t and one event and t' at a later event, then the proper time of the part of the clock's world line from the former event to the latter event is t'-t.

 

[Seminole Boy]

Frederick: thanks for your input. I believe you're making this a bit too technical. What I'm saying is this: you and I are "supposedly" in the exact same universe. We are moving through the exact same spacetime. However, our relative speeds through this spacetime can make my universe different from yours. This is telling me that spacetime itself is independent of the universe in which it's understood. The universe is altered, in other words, by one's relative speed through it.

The General Relativity of the Universe is what I'm talking about here, and I believe that's a good name for it.

 

[berkeman]

Mentor note -- Seminole Boy is no longer with us (not for his posts in this thread, BTW).

 

[Fredrik]

We are moving through the exact same spacetime. However, our relative speeds through this spacetime can make my universe different from yours. This is telling me that spacetime itself is independent of the universe in which it's understood. The universe is altered, in other words, by one's relative speed through it.

The universe isn't altered. Only your perception of it is altered. If you're interested in relativity, I suggest that you study a book that uses the approach based on spacetime diagrams, like Taylor & Wheeler. (I've been told that the first edition is better because the second is somewhat confusing).

 

[TheBC]

I don't understand the question in the title. What I can tell you is this:

SR defines a mathematical structure that we call spacetime. Each specific theory of matter and interactions in the framework of SR is defined by a specification of the matter content of spacetime.

Velocity matters because the numbers displayed by clocks are not the time coordinates of the events on the clock's world line in some specific coordinate system. If a clock displays t and one event and t' at a later event, then the proper time of the part of the clock's world line from the former event to the latter event is t'-t.

I'm not sure I fully understand the opening post, but this is how I interpret SR:
I am not sure SR only defines a mathematical 4D spacetime. There is more involved. To measure between events, the events have to be available for measurement, i.e. observable, (i.o.w. they have to 'exist', be 'real': physics is about reality out there, isn't it?). 4D spacetime is made of 4D worllines (made of billions of 'past, present and future' events). All events are located in specific spots in 4D spacetime, relatively separated by absolute spacetime intervals. This makes SR's relativity of simultaneity of events possible. Hence different observers consider different 3D spaces of events, but they are all part of one and the same 4D spacetime.

 

[Fredrik]

I am not sure SR only defines a mathematical 4D spacetime. There is more involved.

I made a comment about that in a post yesterday. This is what I said:

The purely mathematical part of SR consists of definitions of terms like "Minkowski spacetime" and "proper time". The part that's not just mathematics consists of correspondence rules, i.e. statements that tell us how to interpret the mathematics as predictions about results of experiments.

There are at least two correspondence rules that are included in every theory of matter in the framework of SR, so they can be considered part of the framework, rather than part of the specific theories. These two tell us how to measure time and length. In principle, each theory could come with its own set of additional correspondence rules, but in reality, they are going to be very similar. The main difference is going to be between the classical theories and the quantum theories.

My previous comment in this thread was a bit incomplete, since I didn't mention the correspondence rules.

 

[bobc2]

I'm not sure I fully understand the opening post, but this is how I interpret SR:
I am not sure SR only defines a mathematical 4D spacetime. There is more involved. To measure between events, the events have to be available for measurement, i.e. observable, (i.o.w. they have to 'exist', be 'real': physics is about reality out there, isn't it?). 4D spacetime is made of 4D worllines (made of billions of 'past, present and future' events). All events are located in specific spots in 4D spacetime, relatively separated by absolute spacetime intervals. This makes SR's relativity of simultaneity of events possible. Hence different observers consider different 3D spaces of events, but they are all part of one and the same 4D spacetime.

You are on to something here, TheBC. However, it would be tough sledding to pursue your line of thought on this forum in the context of concepts like "exist" and "real" (that's considered more philosophy than physics). I get the impression that you are alluding to the "block universe" concept of special relativity (I dont' know if you are familiar with the term). If you do a thread search on that subject you will get a sense of the attitudes about that concept.

Of course if the block universe model were the correct model for the universe your questions and notions would find easy explanations (as would Seminole Boy's questions). I think that most physicists here would consider the block universe to be useful as a pedagogical tool for understanding special relativity, but would consider the model as correctly representing reality to be unproven.

 

[bobc2]

Context for Your Probing

TheBC,

I was a little unsure about attempting an answer to your question (I just wanted to comment on the difficulty of your probing). The others have given you reasonable direct answers.

The only thing I would add would be first to repeat what's already been said. No, the space-time of special relativity is not separate from the universe. However, I sensed that you had some picture in mind of what the universe is and perhaps felt that the special relativity description was not quite fitting. It might help to understand that there are at least two views of the universe:

1) The physical universe is 3-dimensional, evolving in time. The special features such as constant speed of light for all observers (regardless of relative velocities among them), relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction are best understood mathematically (Minkowski metric and Lorentz transformations, etc.).

2) The physical universe is 4-dimensional (the "block universe"--it's all there at once) and different observers moving relative to each other have different instantaneous 3-D cross-section views of the 4-D universe (after you've accounted for light travel time delays).

One of Seminole Boy's comments stood out for me:

"The universe is altered, in other words, by one's relative speed through it."

He wouldn't have any trouble resolving this misunderstanding if he understood the block universe (in a pedagogical sense).

Most physicists, while favoring one picture or the other of the universe, will concede that neither model has been proven to represent the "true" picture of reality (aside from competing boundary conditions, details, etc., of the various 4-D curved universe models).

I couldn't tell whether you had a particular view from which you were launching your probing questions.

 

[TheBC]

You are on to something here, TheBC. However, it would be tough sledding to pursue your line of thought on this forum in the context of concepts like "exist" and "real" (that's considered more philosophy than physics).

I don't think Einstein was talking philosophy when he wrote (my bold):

<< From a "happening" in three-dimensional space, physics becomes, as it were, an "existence" in the four-dimensional "world". >> Albert Einstein. "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." 1916. Appendix II Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space ("World") (supplementary to section 17 - last section of part 1 - Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space).

<< Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", 1952.

TheBC,
It might help to understand that there are at least two views of the universe:

1) The physical universe is 3-dimensional, evolving in time. The special features such as constant speed of light for all observers (regardless of relative velocities among them), relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction are best understood mathematically (Minkowski metric and Lorentz transformations, etc.).

2) The physical universe is 4-dimensional (the "block universe"--it's all there at once) and different observers moving relative to each other have different instantaneous 3-D cross-section views of the 4-D universe (after you've accounted for light travel time delays).

The more I read this forum, the more I get confused. Am I correct you propose two different theories of Special Relativity? Never heard of this.
Do you mean an evolving 3D space (invariant, one and the same for all observers) can contain non-simultaneous events? That's new to me. I always thought 3D space = simultaneous events. If relative moving travelers consider a different set of events to be simultaneous, then obviously they consider different 3D spaces.

What else is 3D space 'made of' if it is not simultaneous events?

If for the car driver the event "hitchhicker with hands up in the air" is simultaneous with event "car at flag pole", then obviously the car's 3D space environment can not be any of the indicated horizontal 3D spaces.
If simultaneity is not related to 3D space, then what is 3D space?

The more I think about all this I slide into semantics and the more obscure it gets. Is it wrong to state that the simultaneous events part of 3D space 'exist'?
If not, then what are events? If I observe an event (or rather: observe the image of an event), then that event 'existed' spatially separated from me before the lightbeams from that event reach me. Or what else is observation?

I also am of the opinion that a distance between simultaneous events means spatial separation between the events. Mathematics measures something that's out there to be measured. If the car driver 'measures' a spatial distance between his car and the event 'hitchhiker hands up in the air', then the events 'car at flagpole' and 'hitchhiker with hands in the air' have to be there (exist), and they are 'space related', i.o.w events of 3D space.
In your (one for all observers) evolving 3D space scenario where the above two events are not part of (a) 3D space, the simultanity of above two events can only be a fictitious mathematical result of calculation. Is this part of Special Relativity physics?

I guess you refer to an old ether theory before Einstein's relativity in which the primed space and time coordinates of the Lorentz Transformations were indeed only fictitious data (Lorentz called them "auxiliary mathematical quantity"). Lorentz later admitted this shortcoming as a failure.
Only Einstein's 4D spacetime with different 3D spaces for relative moving travelers can give physical transformations to equally valid frames. Nothing fictitious.
In 4D spacetime all events are a given, as one lot, one entity. For Newton and Lorentz the 3D space was invariant, but in Special Relativity the invariant is 4D spacetime, in which 3D space is only relative: relative moving travelers through (in) 4D spacetime consider different set of events to be simultaneous, i.e. different 3D spaces.

I do not see how 4D spacetime can be compatible with a (for all observers invariant) evolving 3D space. And reading Einstein's words (see above) I am not (yet?) the one to contradict him.

 

[ghwellsjr]

The more I read this forum, the more I get confused. Am I correct you propose two different theories of Special Relativity? Never heard of this.

There's only one Theory of Special Relativity but many compatible interpretations.

Do you mean an evolving 3D space (invariant, one and the same for all observers) can contain non-simultaneous events? That's new to me. I always thought 3D space = simultaneous events. If relative moving travelers consider a different set of events to be simultaneous, then obviously they consider different 3D spaces.

What else is 3D space 'made of' if it is not simultaneous events?

Each Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) assigns Coordinate Time to events differently so that two evens that are simultaneous in one are not simultaneous in another.

If for the car driver the event "hitchhicker with hands up in the air" is simultaneous with event "car at flag pole", then obviously the car's 3D space environment can not be any of the indicated horizontal 3D spaces.
If simultaneity is not related to 3D space, then what is 3D space?

I just made some spacetime diagrams for another thread but they also work for your scenario. Here's one for the IRF in which the hitchhiker and the flag are at rest. The hitchhiker is depicted in blue and the flag is in red. The car is in black and is traveling at 0.8c from the hitchiker to the flag. The dots show each observer's/object's Proper Time of one-month intervals. (Ignore the green lines.)

Now we could say that the event of the hitchhiker throwing up his hands occurs at the Coordinate Time of 10 months (which is also the Proper Times for the hitchhiker and the flag because they are not moving) and for the Proper Time for the car of 6 months. It's clock is Time Dilated because it is moving in this IRF.

Now we can show the same information in the rest frame of the car:

Now if you look at the Proper Time of 6 months for the car (which is now also the Coordinate Time since the car is stationary), it is no longer simultaneous with the Proper Times of 10 months for the event of the hitchhiker throwing up his hands and the Proper Time of 10 months for the flag. In fact, the first happens way later and the second happened way earlier.

The more I think about all this I slide into semantics and the more obscure it gets. Is it wrong to state that the simultaneous events part of 3D space 'exist'?
If not, then what are events? If I observe an event (or rather: observe the image of an event), then that event 'existed' spatially separated from me before the lightbeams from that event reach me. Or what else is observation?

Now you're talking about something else. If you want to depict how observers actually see events, you need to draw lines at 45-degree from the event to the observer. For example, you can see in the above diagrams how the flag sees the event of the car leaving the hitchhiker as the first green line. The line starts at the event (Coordinate Time and Distance both equal zero) of the car leaving the hitchhiker and arrives at the flag at its Proper Time of 12 months. This is the same in both IRF's. You can pick out any other event and its observation by any observer and it will be the same in either IRF. Unfortunately, there are not too many such examples that you can show on those diagrams but you can print them out and extend them to include more examples.

I don't see what is confusing about this. It's very simple and easy to understand.

 

[TheBC]

I don't see what is confusing about this. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Ghwellsjr, nice charts you gave there. There is nothing confusing about this. And they are indeed very simple and easy to understand.
But your post does not deal with what Bobc2's post and my reply to his is about.
The issue is whether your IRF's and corresponding simultaneous events do make sense in a (one for all observer's) evolving 3D space scenario, or only in a 4D spacetime...

 

[Dale]

I don't think Einstein was talking philosophy when he wrote (my bold):

Why not? Was Einstein not permitted to philosophize from time to time? The key difference between science and philosophy is experimental evidence. I cannot think of any experiment which could distinguish the two concepts Einstein mentioned, can you? So I would classify it as philosophy, not science.

Furthermore, the words you put in bold are primarily philosophical terms, not scientific terms.

I do not see how 4D spacetime can be compatible with a (for all observers invariant) evolving 3D space.

Why not? Which specific expermiental outcome would be different in the two cases?

 

[ghwellsjr]

I don't see what is confusing about this. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Ghwellsjr, nice charts you gave there. There is nothing confusing about this. And they are indeed very simple and easy to understand.
But your post does not deal with what Bobc2's post and my reply to his is about.
The issue is whether your IRF's and corresponding simultaneous events do make sense in a (one for all observer's) evolving 3D space scenario, or only in a 4D spacetime...

You're right, my post was not dealing with Bobc2's posts as I find them confusing, complex and impossible to understand. You have a choice. Stick with what is clear, simple and easy to understand or go with something that is not.

But I did answer many of your questions, did you not recognize that?

As I see it, your major concern is regarding what is real. I was pointing out that all observers' measurements and observations are real and how even though we apply different IRF's with different coordinates (which are not real in the sense that you are asking), they all adhere to the constant speed of light and they all support the same real measurements and observations that everyone makes as related to their own Proper Times. This means that simultaneity issues between remote events are not real (in the sense that you mean it) because they are based on Coordinate Times.

 

[bobc2]

I don't think Einstein was talking philosophy when he wrote (my bold):

<< From a "happening" in three-dimensional space, physics becomes, as it were, an "existence" in the four-dimensional "world". >> Albert Einstein. "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." 1916. Appendix II Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space ("World") (supplementary to section 17 - last section of part 1 - Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space).

<< Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", 1952.



The more I read this forum, the more I get confused. Am I correct you propose two different theories of Special Relativity? Never heard of this.
Do you mean an evolving 3D space (invariant, one and the same for all observers) can contain non-simultaneous events? That's new to me. I always thought 3D space = simultaneous events. If relative moving travelers consider a different set of events to be simultaneous, then obviously they consider different 3D spaces.

What else is 3D space 'made of' if it is not simultaneous events?

If for the car driver the event "hitchhicker with hands up in the air" is simultaneous with event "car at flag pole", then obviously the car's 3D space environment can not be any of the indicated horizontal 3D spaces.
If simultaneity is not related to 3D space, then what is 3D space?

The more I think about all this I slide into semantics and the more obscure it gets. Is it wrong to state that the simultaneous events part of 3D space 'exist'?
If not, then what are events? If I observe an event (or rather: observe the image of an event), then that event 'existed' spatially separated from me before the lightbeams from that event reach me. Or what else is observation?

I also am of the opinion that a distance between simultaneous events means spatial separation between the events. Mathematics measures something that's out there to be measured. If the car driver 'measures' a spatial distance between his car and the event 'hitchhiker hands up in the air', then the events 'car at flagpole' and 'hitchhiker with hands in the air' have to be there (exist), and they are 'space related', i.o.w events of 3D space.
In your (one for all observers) evolving 3D space scenario where the above two events are not part of (a) 3D space, the simultanity of above two events can only be a fictitious mathematical result of calculation. Is this part of Special Relativity physics?

I guess you refer to an old ether theory before Einstein's relativity in which the primed space and time coordinates of the Lorentz Transformations were indeed only fictitious data (Lorentz called them "auxiliary mathematical quantity"). Lorentz later admitted this shortcoming as a failure.
Only Einstein's 4D spacetime with different 3D spaces for relative moving travelers can give physical transformations to equally valid frames. Nothing fictitious.
In 4D spacetime all events are a given, as one lot, one entity. For Newton and Lorentz the 3D space was invariant, but in Special Relativity the invariant is 4D spacetime, in which 3D space is only relative: relative moving travelers through (in) 4D spacetime consider different set of events to be simultaneous, i.e. different 3D spaces.

I do not see how 4D spacetime can be compatible with a (for all observers invariant) evolving 3D space. And reading Einstein's words (see above) I am not (yet?) the one to contradict him.

Hi TheBC,

I think I follow your logic, and you seem to be making some reasonable points. But, yes, there are essentially two interpretations of special relativity: 1) A time evolving 3-dimensional universe and 2) A four-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects (it's static--all there at once).

Originally, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare' and others presented papers that attempted to explain the special features of special relativity has resulting from electrical force transmission delays, etc. (the "Lorentz Aether Theory"--or LET). Rindler, in his textbook, does not go into the details of the theory, but dismisses it with the comment that the theory faded away into obscurity. However, some people seem to still affirm the theory, although, in spite of my recent literature searches, it still is not clear to me personally whether or what kind of modifications have been applied to overcome the original defects in the theory (e.g., if one rod, moving at relativistic speed, is shrunk due to absolute physical effects, and another rod at rest in the ether is not shrunk, then everyone would always be able to tell which one is shrunk--unlike Einstein's relativity, where each observer sees the other's rod as shrunk). I've not been successful in getting responses on this forum that would further clarify that point. I'm not claiming to have proved the theory to be invalid--just haven't found a convincing demonstration of it (since it is based on a physical mechanism, you should be able to validate the mechanism).

I think that nowadays, those who reject the block universe (a real 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects), may possibly do it for one or more of the following reasons:

1) The block universe is just one among competing interpretations of special relativity (particularly LET)

2) It is not presently possible to understand reality (it remains mysterious), and it is sufficient to just understand the mathematics (Minkowski metric, time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity).

3) A 4-dimensional universe has not been proven to exist as physical reality. Further, terms such as "exist" and "reality" should not be a part of doing physics--rather those are philosophical terms.

I once presented a summary of Paul Davies's book "About Time" on this forum. After reading his book, I had a short encounter with Davies during a visit at Arizona State University in Tempe (it deals quite a bit with the block universe). You can see the various attitudes that surface when a subject like this is put on the table (I think the thread may have been closed):

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=595021

 

[ghwellsjr]

Originally, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare' and others presented papers that attempted to explain the special features of special relativity has resulting from electrical force transmission delays, etc. (the "Lorentz Aether Theory"--or LET). Rindler, in his textbook, does not go into the details of the theory, but dismisses it with the comment that the theory faded away into obscurity. However, some people seem to still affirm the theory, although, in spite of my recent literature searches, it still is not clear to me personally whether or what kind of modifications have been applied to overcome the original defects in the theory (e.g., if one rod, moving at relativistic speed, is shrunk due to absolute physical effects, and another rod at rest in the ether is not shrunk, then everyone would always be able to tell which one is shrunk--unlike Einstein's relativity, where each observer sees the other's rod as shrunk). I've not been successful in getting responses on this forum that would further clarify that point. I'm not claiming to have proved the theory to be invalid--just haven't found a convincing demonstration of it (since it is based on a physical mechanism, you should be able to validate the mechanism).

Notice the "E" in LET? That stands for ether which simply means a single absolute state in which light travels in all directions at c. Take all of SR and then ignore the second postulate and instead postulate that light travels at c only in a single reference frame and you have LET. Whether or not Lorentz actually formulated or believed in that particular form of LET, that's what we mean today when we speak of LET. It's identical to SR except that it assigns one Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) to be preferred, in the sense that nature operates physically on it, even though we cannot tell which IRF that is.

But you cannot attribute a physical mechanism exclusively to LET and not to SR. The Lorentz Transformation (LT) in SR requires that all the laws of physics transform according to LT. Maxwell's equations already did this prior to Einstein formulating SR. But other laws did not and they had to be modified to correctly reflect relativistic requirements. And once that's done, the physical mechanism that you want to attribute only to LET is also in SR. It's just that no one bothers to look in detail for a demonstration of it because it cannot be detected, just like the propagation of light cannot be detected.

The reason that SR is preferred over LET is that SR is simpler. It frees us of having to assign a candidate ether rest state, even if we believe the ether exists. The question for you is: do you agree that there is never a requirement to assign more than one IRF in any given scenario?

 

[TheBC]

Why not? Was Einstein not permitted to philosophize from time to time? The key difference between science and philosophy is experimental evidence. I cannot think of any experiment which could distinguish the two concepts Einstein mentioned, can you? So I would classify it as philosophy, not science.

Furthermore, the words you put in bold are primarily philosophical terms, not scientific terms.

Would you consider 'event' a scientific term? Do you accept 'observation'?
If I observe an event then that event was out there, happened, existed spatially separated from me before the lightbeams from that event reach me.
Or what else is observation? Mental images popping into your mind? C'mon, Dalespam...
An event is out there to be observed, therefore the event 'happens', 'exists' out there before it is observed. Am I talking philosophy here? If you consider all this philosophy, no wonder you encounter problems with Einstein's quotes.

Why not? Which specific expermiental outcome would be different in the two cases?

In the -one for all observers evolving 3D space- you will simply not get any experimental evidence for the reciprocal time dilation, length contraction etc. If you get full experimental evidence for the Lorentz Transformation it's because 4D spacetime is the context we live in, not an 'absolute' evolving (ether?) 3D space.
Can you give me an experiment to prove an absolute evolving 3Dspace gives experimental evidence? I need more than an calculation of course.
Maybe you can answer my question I posted in #11:
In your (one for all observers) evolving 3D space scenario where the above two events are not part of (a) 3D space, the simultanity of above two events can only be a fictitious mathematical result of calculation. Is this part of Special Relativity physics?. In other words, do you call that experimental evidence?
To have experimental evidence the outcome of a formula (say Lorentz Transformation) not only have to make sense on a calculator or a sheet of paper, but also on the playground, out there in reality. An evolving 3D (ether?) reality can never give you the experimental evidence for the Lorentz Transfomations. One part of the results (the so called primed coordinates) are only fictional auxiliary mathematical data.
Lorentz: << The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t. >> Lorentz, H.A (1916), The theory of electrons, Leipzig & Berlin: B.G. Teubner.
Only Einstein's 4D spacetime with different 3D spaces for relative moving travelers can give physical transformations. This is basic Special Relativity.
I guess that on this forum any physical interpretation of mathematical numbers is considered philosophy, which reduces this forum to just mathematics issues. That's fine, but then please don't call it a physicsforum ;).

 

[TheBC]

Hi TheBC,

I think I follow your logic, and you seem to be making some reasonable points. But, yes, there are essentially two interpretations of special relativity: 1) A time evolving 3-dimensional universe and 2) A four-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects (it's static--all there at once).

Originally, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare' and others presented papers that attempted to explain the special features of special relativity has resulting from electrical force transmission delays, etc. (the "Lorentz Aether Theory"--or LET). Rindler, in his textbook, does not go into the details of the theory, but dismisses it with the comment that the theory faded away into obscurity. However, some people seem to still affirm the theory, although, in spite of my recent literature searches, it still is not clear to me personally whether or what kind of modifications have been applied to overcome the original defects in the theory (e.g., if one rod, moving at relativistic speed, is shrunk due to absolute physical effects, and another rod at rest in the ether is not shrunk, then everyone would always be able to tell which one is shrunk--unlike Einstein's relativity, where each observer sees the other's rod as shrunk). I've not been successful in getting responses on this forum that would further clarify that point. I'm not claiming to have proved the theory to be invalid--just haven't found a convincing demonstration of it (since it is based on a physical mechanism, you should be able to validate the mechanism).

I think that nowadays, those who reject the block universe (a real 4-dimensional universe populated by 4-dimensional objects), may possibly do it for one or more of the following reasons:

1) The block universe is just one among competing interpretations of special relativity (particularly LET)

2) It is not presently possible to understand reality (it remains mysterious), and it is sufficient to just understand the mathematics (Minkowski metric, time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity).

3) A 4-dimensional universe has not been proven to exist as physical reality. Further, terms such as "exist" and "reality" should not be a part of doing physics--rather those are philosophical terms.

I once presented a summary of Paul Davies's book "About Time" on this forum. After reading his book, I had a short encounter with Davies during a visit at Arizona State University in Tempe (it deals quite a bit with the block universe). You can see the various attitudes that surface when a subject like this is put on the table (I think the thread may have been closed):

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=595021

I am really baffled you consider an ether theory can be 'part' of Special Relativity! Be happy Einstein doesn't hear you.

 

[TheBC]

Notice the "E" in LET? That stands for ether which simply means a single absolute state in which light travels in all directions at c. Take all of SR and then ignore the second postulate and instead postulate that light travels at c only in a single reference frame and you have LET. Whether or not Lorentz actually formulated or believed in that particular form of LET, that's what we mean today when we speak of LET. It's identical to SR except that it assigns one Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) to be preferred, in the sense that nature operates physically on it, even though we cannot tell which IRF that is.

But you cannot attribute a physical mechanism exclusively to LET and not to SR. The Lorentz Transformation (LT) in SR requires that all the laws of physics transform according to LT. Maxwell's equations already did this prior to Einstein formulating SR. But other laws did not and they had to be modified to correctly reflect relativistic requirements. And once that's done, the physical mechanism that you want to attribute only to LET is also in SR. It's just that no one bothers to look in detail for a demonstration of it because it cannot be detected, just like the propagation of light cannot be detected.

The reason that SR is preferred over LET is that SR is simpler. It frees us of having to assign a candidate ether rest state, even if we believe the ether exists. The question for you is: do you agree that there is never a requirement to assign more than one IRF in any given scenario?

LET is an awful attempt to mix dynamical ether effects in one frame and pure spatio-temporal 4D effects in another. I am flabbergasted you can take this serious...

 

[bobc2]

I am really baffled you consider an ether theory can be 'part' of Special Relativity! Be happy Einstein doesn't hear you.

TheBC, why are you assuming that I consider ether theory as part of Special Relativity? I haven't taken any position at all with my comments. I was focused on trying to summarize for you the range of views that are out there in the physics community.

 

[bobc2]

Notice the "E" in LET? That stands for ether which simply means a single absolute state in which light travels in all directions at c. Take all of SR and then ignore the second postulate and instead postulate that light travels at c only in a single reference frame and you have LET. Whether or not Lorentz actually formulated or believed in that particular form of LET, that's what we mean today when we speak of LET. It's identical to SR except that it assigns one Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) to be preferred, in the sense that nature operates physically on it, even though we cannot tell which IRF that is.

But you cannot attribute a physical mechanism exclusively to LET and not to SR. The Lorentz Transformation (LT) in SR requires that all the laws of physics transform according to LT. Maxwell's equations already did this prior to Einstein formulating SR. But other laws did not and they had to be modified to correctly reflect relativistic requirements. And once that's done, the physical mechanism that you want to attribute only to LET is also in SR. It's just that no one bothers to look in detail for a demonstration of it because it cannot be detected, just like the propagation of light cannot be detected.

The reason that SR is preferred over LET is that SR is simpler. It frees us of having to assign a candidate ether rest state, even if we believe the ether exists. The question for you is: do you agree that there is never a requirement to assign more than one IRF in any given scenario?

ghwellsjr, I get the impression that you have no understanding of LET, other than the fact that light waves appear in an absolute stationary medium known as the aether and that the Lorentz transformations are applied (thus, in your mind, making it equivalent to Einstein's special relativity). Lorentz at least presented a thoroughly developed derivation for a specific mechanism. I have a hunch that you could not describe or provide derivations for any such mechanism that would hold up today.

The LET theory as you describe it is no more valid than a theory such as: "...We were all created (along with the universe) three seconds ago with a memory."

I am not intending to take a position on block universe here, but just to point out that at least there is a sequence of logical statements and observations that directly motivate the block universe concept.

 

[Fredrik]

I think the ether theory is very interesting because it can be viewed as an alternative interpretation of the mathematics of SR as a description of what's "actually happening". I'm not saying that it's a better interpretation or more likely to be true. I'm just saying that the fact that there's more than one interpretation is interesting in itself.

 

[Dale]

Would you consider 'event' a scientific term? Do you accept 'observation'?

Yes, both of those terms have rigorous scientific definitions, unlike the philosophical terms you highlighted.

If I observe an event then that event was out there, happened, existed spatially separated from me before the lightbeams from that event reach me.

That is a philosophical position. Specifically the philosophy of ontology. It is an ontological position I happen to agree with, but I recognize it as being philosophical. Taking a philosophical statement and throwing in a couple of scientific words doesn't make it a scientific statement.

Or what else is observation? Mental images popping into your mind? C'mon, Dalespam...
An event is out there to be observed, therefore the event 'happens', 'exists' out there before it is observed. Am I talking philosophy here? If you consider all this philosophy, no wonder you encounter problems with Einstein's quotes.

Yes, you are talking philosophy, the fact that you are unaware of it is a little worrisome. In any case, I have no problem with his quote; it was a perfectly good philosophical quote.

In the -one for all observers evolving 3D space- you will simply not get any experimental evidence for the reciprocal time dilation, length contraction etc. If you get full experimental evidence for the Lorentz Transformation it's because 4D spacetime is the context we live in, not an 'absolute' evolving (ether?) 3D space.

No, any experimental evidence (including reciprocal time dilation) supporting the Lorentz transform can also be taken as experimental confirmation of LET and its associated 3D space.

Can you give me an experiment to prove an absolute evolving 3Dspace gives experimental evidence? I need more than an calculation of course.

No. And I have made no claim that requires such evidence. I have merely challenged your claim that the 3D and 4D models are incompatible. If you believe they are incompatible then it is up to you to demonstrate why. Thus far you have proposed length contraction and the Lorentz transform, neither of which are examples of incompatibility.

 

[Dale]

LET is an awful attempt to mix dynamical ether effects in one frame and pure spatio-temporal 4D effects in another. I am flabbergasted you can take this serious...

Nonetheless it exists and is a clear counterexample to assertions that ONLY a 4D block universe ontology is compatible with the Lorentz transforms.

 

[Dale]

TheBC, why are you assuming that I consider ether theory as part of Special Relativity? I haven't taken any position at all with my comments. I was focused on trying to summarize for you the range of views that are out there in the physics community.

Now you know how I feel!

 

[Dale]

if one rod, moving at relativistic speed, is shrunk due to absolute physical effects, and another rod at rest in the ether is not shrunk, then everyone would always be able to tell which one is shrunk--unlike Einstein's relativity, where each observer sees the other's rod as shrunk). I've not been successful in getting responses on this forum that would further clarify that point.

Let me clarify then. Only the rod moving wrt the aether is shrunk, but if that rod were to measure the length of the stationary rod then it would still measure the aether rod to be shrunk. I.e. Even though the ontological state is asymmetric (one contracted the other not) the measurable state is symmetric (both measure other contracted).

 

[TheBC]

Why not? Was Einstein not permitted to philosophize from time to time?

Dalespam,
was your quote << A point particle exists at a specific location at any instant in time >> https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4366414&postcount=4
also only a philosophical statement with no physical significance at all?

May I ask you what 3D space is as far as events are concerned? (simultaneous events? non simultaneous events? A combination of simultaneous and non-simultaneous events? !)
Or is 3D space only a philosophical concept?

When one talks of 'space'coordinates, this 'space'part of the coordinates is just philosophy?

 

[Dale]

Dalespam,
was your quote << A point particle exists at a specific location at any instant in time >> https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4366414&postcount=4
also only a philosophical statement with no physical significance at all?

You are right. My use of the word "exists" makes the quote philosophical (specifically the philosophical discipline of ontology).

A better statement would have been that the worldline of a point particle maps a real number (the proper time of the particle) to a timelike path in the manifold, with one event in the manifold corresponding to each value of proper time.

Or is 3D space only a philosophical concept?

When one talks of 'space'coordinates, this 'space'part of the coordinates is just philosophy?

It is mathematical. It becomes philosophical if you make ontological statements about it. It becomes scientific if you make experimental predictions from it.

You seem to have a useless chip on your shoulder about this. The fact is that Einstein made philosophical statements on occasion. The mere fact that Einstein said it doesn't turn a philosophical statement into a non-philosophical one.

PS I note that you were completely unable to respond to the substance of any of my points. Instead, the best you could do is to point out that I also, on occasion, make philosophical statements. I don't know what you were hoping to prove with that. I do indeed make philosophical statements. As far as I can tell, that is irrelevant to the current discussion, unless you are attempting some strange ad hominem rebuttal along the lines that I am unqualified to discuss science since I also occasionally discuss philosophy.

 

[TheBC]

Dalespam,

1/
You didn't respond to my question what 3D space is. Am I correct that 3D space is a collection of simultaneous events? Or what else is 3D space?

If you tell me 'exist' has no meaning in physics, then what are you measuring? You agreed that observation has scientific definition. How can you observe an event if you refute 'existence' of that event? Please explain. Or are events just mental images popping up in your mind out of nothing?
If 50 people observe the same event, but that event has no 'observer independent existence before it is observed', what makes all those observers observe the same event?

You perhaps simply do not accept an observer independent reality? I.o.w. solipism? Is this acceptable on a physicsforum?
I'm just trying to make sense to what you say and what all this is about.

2/
What makes you say that Einstein was talking philosophy? Where do you get this from?
I stick to Einstein: he was a realist and believed in an observer independent reality:

<< Belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. >> Einstein, "Maxwell's Influence on the Evolution of the Idea of Physical Reality," 1931, in Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Random House, 266.

<< Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as something that is considered to be independent of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of 'physical reality. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists', which is obviously false. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< As always the conception of the existence of the real world is fundamental in physics. Without is there would be no borderline between psychology and physics. ... Modern developments have changed nothing in this respect. >> To David Holland, June 25, 1948 Einstein Archives9-305

 

[Dale]

You didn't respond to my question what 3D space is. Am I correct that 3D space is a collection of simultaneous events? Or what else is 3D space?

I didn't respond because it seemed like a disingenuous question. If you really want to know then start here: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=3d+space

You also might try responding to my substantive points, or do you think that you are exempt?

If you tell me 'exist' has no meaning in physics, then what are you measuring?

I am not aware of something which measures "existence". If you believe that "exist" has scientific meaning then please provide an experiment which measures existence, or provide a scientific reference defining "exist" in terms of experimental observables.

You agreed that observation has scientific definition. How can you observe an event if you refute 'existence' of that event? Please explain. Or are events just mental images popping up in your mind out of nothing?
If 50 people observe the same event, but that event has no 'observer independent existence before it is observed', what makes all those observers observe the same event?

You perhaps simply do not accept an observer independent reality? I.o.w. solipism? Is this acceptable on a physicsforum?

I am not taking any philosophical position. I am merely pointing out that your philosophical position is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

What makes you say that Einstein was talking philosophy? Where do you get this from?
I stick to Einstein: he was a realist and believed in an observer independent reality:

Wow. You really don't get it, do you. Realism is itself a philosophical belief, part of the study of ontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You are absolutely correct. Einstein was a realist. That doesn't make realism non-philosophical. Einstein was certainly entitled to hold whatever philosophical viewpoint he wished to hold.

Arguing with you is bizarre. You don't even seem to know the basics of the topic, but react so strongly about it.

 

[TheBC]

I didn't respond because it seemed like a disingenuous question. If you really want to know then start here: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=3d+space

I.o.w you have to refer to a load of internet pages to answer whether or not '3D space = simultaneous events'... ?

You also might try responding to my substantive points, or do you think that you are exempt?

I am not aware of something which measures "existence".

It was about whether you can observe and measure without existence...

If you believe that "exist" has scientific meaning then please provide an experiment which measures existence, or provide a scientific reference defining "exist" in terms of experimental observables.

I am not taking any philosophical position. I am merely pointing out that your philosophical position is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

Wow. You really don't get it, do you. Realism is itself a philosophical belief, part of the study of ontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

You are absolutely correct. Einstein was a realist. That doesn't make realism non-philosophical. Einstein was certainly entitled to hold whatever philosophical viewpoint he wished to hold.

No. He was not talking about a philosophical viewpoint. He was talking about the need of realism to make sense of science.

<< Belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. >> Einstein, "Maxwell's Influence on the Evolution of the Idea of Physical Reality," 1931, in Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Random House, 266.

<< Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as something that is considered to be independent of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of 'physical reality. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists', which is obviously false. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< As always the conception of the existence of the real world is fundamental in physics. Without is there would be no borderline between psychology and physics. ... Modern developments have changed nothing in this respect. >> To David Holland, June 25, 1948 Einstein Archives9-305

Arguing with you is bizarre. You don't even seem to know the basics of the topic, but react so strongly about it.

I simply disagree the way you read Einstein. I have never read a book about SR (I read about a hundred over the last 30 years) the way you interpret Einstein's SR.
I find arguing with you bizarre too. If I follow you then Einstein is about mathematical calcs only and not about science.
You can defend your point of view, but please do not pretend it was Einstein's point of view.
Do you think Einstein agreed this LET thing was/is a valid alternative for his SR? (Probably if you still believe epicycles are a valid alternative for the planet's orbits...)

 

[Dale]

No. He was not talking about a philosophical viewpoint.

Nonsense. Realism IS a philosophical viewpoint. You cannot talk about realism and not be talking about a philosophical viewpoint.

He was talking about the need of realism to make sense of science.

<< Belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. >> Einstein, "Maxwell's Influence on the Evolution of the Idea of Physical Reality," 1931, in Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Random House, 266.

<< Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as something that is considered to be independent of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of 'physical reality. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists', which is obviously false. >> Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

<< As always the conception of the existence of the real world is fundamental in physics. Without is there would be no borderline between psychology and physics. ... Modern developments have changed nothing in this respect. >> To David Holland, June 25, 1948 Einstein Archives9-305

I agree that lots of well-respected physicists held the philosophical position of realism. I further agree that their reasons for holding it are good reasons. That does not make the realism itself non-philosophical. You don't seem to understand that.

Furthermore, the discussion about realism is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is much more specific than realism. The topic at hand is the block universe and your mistaken belief that it has been experimentally proven as uniquely true. Two scientists, both with the same data and the same mathematical models and the same philosophical belief in realism could still reach different conclusions. One could conclude that "reality" conformed to the block universe model and the other could conclude that "reality" conformed to the LET model. Both would equally lay claim to the realists philosophical position, both would equally lay claim to the experimental data, and both would equally lay claim to the mathematical equations which predict the experimental data.

Please respond to the two scientists scenario, as I believe that it clearly illustrates the issue at hand.

I simply disagree the way you read Einstein. I have never read a book about SR (I read about a hundred over the last 30 years) the way you interpret Einstein's SR.
I find arguing with you bizarre too. If I follow you then Einstein is about mathematical calcs only and not about science.

No. There is also plenty of experimental support for SR. That makes it science, not just math. See here: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

I am certainly not trying to remove experiment from science. I am simply arguing against your attempt to add philosophy to science.

You can defend your point of view, but please do not pretend it was Einstein's point of view.

Please use the quote feature to show me exactly where I pretended my view was Einstein's. As far as I know I haven't even presented my view anywhere in this thread, let alone pretended that it was Einstein's. I have only argued against your view.

For clarity, I will present my point of view. Philosophically, I am also a realist and I also philosophically prefer the block universe model to the LET model. Where we disagree is that I recognize both of those beliefs as being philosophical beliefs, while you do not.

 

[TheBC]

Dalespam,
if an ether theory is a valid alternative, what is your experimental data for proving this ether? (obviously I do not dare saying experimental evidence for the 'existence' of the ether...;-) )

Can you give me the experimental data proving that an evolving 3D ether space is a valid alternative for Einstein's 4D spacetime? Just writing the lorentz transformation calcs on a sheet of paper? Is that sufficient experimental evidence?

What is your experimental evidence for reciprocal time dilation and length contraction in an evolving ether space? Just writing down the formulae on a sheet of paper?

Your post #27:

Let me clarify then. Only the rod moving wrt the aether is shrunk, but if that rod were to measure the length of the stationary rod then it would still measure the aether rod to be shrunk. I.e. Even though the ontological state is asymmetric (one contracted the other not) the measurable state is symmetric (both measure other contracted).

I am shocked by what you write here. What you write here boils down to: only the rod moving wrt the aether is shrunk, and the moving observer only measures the aether rod shrunk... For the moving observer the aether rod 'is' not shrunk, but he measures it as shrunk.

Your analysis makes me think of optical illusion, but instead of an optical illusion it's is a mathematical illusion: the rod has a certain length but you only measure it differently. Here your measurement does not give any experimental evidence at all, not even for the not shrunken rod. similar for the time dilation.

That's exactly what Lorentz was aware of when he said:

<< The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t. >> Lorentz, H.A (1916), The theory of electrons, Leipzig & Berlin: B.G. Teubner.

(He considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation from the resting to a "fictitious" moving system. (f.ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory))

Do you call a fictitious moving system a valid frame for achieving 'experimental evidence'? I don't.

In an evolving 3D ether space you have a dynamical contraction and dynamical time dilation from the stationary frame to the moving frame. The length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical. Only fictitious mathematical.

How can all laws in al frames be equally valid in a scientific physical way if one frame is real, and the other fictitious?

Lorentz (and Poincaré ... ) found a mathematical solution but not a physical solution. Einstein found a solution to make the frames physically equally valid (and thus making 4D spacetime a reality, not merely an abstract coordinate playground as often put forward on this forum or elsewhere...).

It is easy to refute every reference to 'real', fictitious' etc as being philosophical, but that's not what Lorentz nor Einstein did. They fought for understanding an observer independent reality. And yes, this is what I read in Einstein and Lorentz's quotes.

If LET is a melting pot of 4D spacetime and 3D aether space, then LET is simply an awful attempt to mix dynamical ether effects in one frame and pure 4D spatio-temporal 4D effects in another. It would mean that in one frame one has to accept that the origin of contraction and dilation is dynamical, and in the other frame the cause is not dynamical but pure spatio-temporal. Two different causes in one theory that has the intention to show how all laws are physical equal in all frames. Is this acceptable for you? Definitely not for me.

 

[Dale]

if an ether theory is a valid alternative, what is your experimental data for proving this ether?

All of these experiments can be taken as experimental confirmation of LET: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

I am shocked by what you write here. ... Only fictitious mathematical. ... not a physical solution ... simply an awful attempt

Your various compliants here are scientifically irrelevant. All that matters from a scientific perspective is whether or not a theory's predictions match experiment. LET's predictions do.

This conversation is running in circles. You have already been corrected and you are now aware of the fact that the block universe is a philosophical interpretation of the Lorentz transforms, and one which is not uniquely validated by experiment. You are also now aware that there are other interpretations of the Lorentz transforms, such as LET, which also are validated by all of the same experimental evidence.

You may feel free to explain the block universe and describe why you think it is a philosophically superior interpretation. You may not present it as uniquely proven by experiment.