How Resilient Is Space'Time', Scientific American

“Just how resilient is spacetime?”, or

 “Is the elephant in the room wearing the emperors invisible robe?”

 ( In response to the Scientific American Article "Just How Resilient Is Space'Time'? "

In my experience many professionals seem to think the concept of Space-Time is pretty resilient, for many reasons, including that Relativity’s main conclusions seem to be experimentally, and practically confirmed. E.g. every GPS satellite system must employ the equations for both gravitational, and Relative velocity ‘time’ dilation.

 But there may be a very significant oversight hidden by the very accuracy and usefulness of Relativity’s findings.

 If you check the source paper “Relativity - "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", section 1 “Kinematical Part”

 https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

 Carefully, we find a significant problem with Einstein’s inclusion of “time”, because, section one says... (quote, my numbering)

 1 -“If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.”...

 2 - ” Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” “

... and

 3- “If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”

 

So this critical, key paper, at the centre of the concept of space-“time” says in one sentence

 (1)- we describe the motion of a “material point”, as functions of a thing called “time”.

 And in (2), quite correctly, that this-

“has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear” (and I would add “actually correct” ) , “as to what we understand by “time” ).

 But in (3) – though it is claimed we compare the motion of a “material point” as a function of a thing called “time”, the text in fact just, and only, compares the motion and location of a material point (a train on a track), to the motion and location of another material point – specifically ‘the physical position of a hand rotating on a numbered dial’.

 This is in my opinion an extremely important and vastly overlooked detail, because in actual, checkable fact, the (essentially otherwise valid) findings of OEMB rest only on its 2 postulates, and the observation that moving things exist, and their locations and speeds can be compared.

 In other words, Relativity, from the very outset, in fact gives us no evidence, or reason to accept that there actually is a thing called “time” that ‘flows’ in one direction.

 

Instead the existence of a thing called time is just assumed, and the paper seems written “as if” a thing called time exists, and is typically interpreted “as if” this is true.

 

If however you interpret the paper as if matter “just” exists and moves in “3” dimensions, then, imo, we find that all of SR’s findings are still useful and accurate, but if interpreted logically, and genuinely objectively, only reveal the unintuitive findings that all the atoms etc in a body, simply moving rapidly in one spatial direction “are” oscillating more slowly than expected.

 This is massively, and fundamentally, different to claiming the paper shows that a thing called “time” exists, and is dilated in its passing from an unobservable “future”, through the present, and into an unobservable “past” (or any variant of the theory of time).

 This imo, leaves SR, and GR as showing us only that things exist, and are moving and changing in unexpected ways, and most critically, not, confirming that an extra “dimension” of a thing called time exists, or that it is merged with space. Instead the papers only seem to show that space, and dilated rates of change exist.

 In Einstein’s own quote, it says “ ‘time’ is that which ‘clocks’ measure”.

 But f you look objectively at a machine called a ‘clock’, you can see that *all* it is, is a mechanism that displays a usefully example of steady motion. One can certainly use that “example of regular motion” to compare with other examples of simple or complex motion, but in no such experiment will you observe any actual evidence of a thing called ‘time’ passing in another dimension. ( i.e. look out for confirmation bias only in favour of the idea of time... does seeing a naked looking emperor confirm “invisible robes” exist?)

 The concept of space-“time” seems to center on Hermann Minkowski’s famous quote ....

 “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”

 But the “experimental physics” referred to must logically be confirmation of SR’s postulates,

 1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

     The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

 2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

     As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

 So all that in fact the “experiments” confirm is, The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference, and that light exists and moves at a constant speed , in a physical direction.

 The “soil of experimental physics” here does not in any way confirm that there is a thing called time, that must, or does, exist and pass in another dimension for things to be able to exist and move.

 Instead, Relativity seems to show us only that everything exists in a(n expanding) universe, in which mass *is* telling Space how to curve, and curved “space” *is* telling mass how to move. And fast moving objects *are* changing slower than others.

 Therefore, to me the “Elephant in the room”, is the strange acceptance of so many professionals, of the complete lack of any experiments (as per the scientific method) to provide evidence of the existence of a thing called ‘time’, or any of its alleged components of functions (e.g. the actual existence of a ‘past’, ‘future’ or proof this ‘time’ thing ‘flows’, or proof it must exist for matter to exist or move).

 And the “emperors invisible robe” is the again widespread acceptance of some unobservable, intangible, unmeasurable ‘thing’ that seems only to exist if one blindly assumes it ‘must’, and does not consider the antithesis that perhaps the emperor is just naked, and the universe is just as it actually appears to be, full of matter just existing and moving in 3 “dimensional” (warped) space... with no past, future or ‘time’ actually existing as anything other than useful concepts.

 Therefore, without the blind assumption a thing called ‘time’ exists, and without actual experiments to show a thing called ‘time’ exists, and is involved in motion, Relativity does not seem to confirm, or, critically, even “require” the existence of a thing called ‘time’, and therefore, imo, only ‘warped-Space’ and ‘dilated change through Space’ seem resilient, but  the concept of space-“time” is not actually valid or resilient at all.

 

Sincerely

 Matthew Marsden.

 (Auth : "A Brief History of Timelessness" )

 Timelessness.co.uk

 (Videos on the possibility in detail)

Timeless Time-Travel answers to Prof Cox's"Science of Dr WHO".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii3gxxn2reA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ8A-w78xM

the eBook

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I09XHMQ

 

(NOte: if it is suggested a thing called “time must exist (other than just as a useful idea), because the definition of motion is dx/dt, then logically, and scientifically, for this to be valid all relevant evidence (as per the scientific method) that one is not just getting the value substituted for the symbol ‘t’ from something that in fact is just another example of simple “motion” that is arbitrarily just named  ‘time’, is required).

Comments