The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time

  • 110 Replies
  • 7336 Views
  • 5 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #80 on: 10/07/2019 08:00:32 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Agree, but then why are you applying rules of empiricism to a mathematical statement?

Contestant: I'll take "Let's get experimental" for 500, Alex.

Alex Trebek: In this discipline, statements about the physical world which have been derived from mathematical theory
                       i.e. mathematical statements about the physical world, are subjected to empirical tests to determine their
                       correspondence to the physical world we inhabit and thereby their accuracy as models of that physical
                       world. In this sense, mathematical statements are subjected to the the rules of empiricism to see if they
                       comply and thereby determine if they are veriified or falsified.

Contestant: What is scientific empiricism?

Alex Trebek: Correct! We would also have accepted "What is Science?"

Contestant: I'll take "Honey, let's be reasonable" for 500.

Alex Trebek: I haven't observed it, nor am I able to verify it empirically - not yet but possibly never will never be able to -
                       yet, it forms a critical part of my conclusion.

Contestant: What is an assumed conclusion?

Alex Trebek: Yes! We would also have accepted, "What is a conclusion that I have assumed? or what is circular
                       reasoning or circular logic".

Contestant: I'll take "Rømer wasn't built in a day" for 500.

Alex Trebek: and that is one of today's Daily Doubles. How much do you want to risk?

Contestant: Let's put it all on.

Alex Trebek: All of it, on Rømer, are you sure?

Contestant: Sure, let's go for it.

Alex Trebek: This discovery in 1676, usually attributed to Danish astronomer Ole Rømer, helps to explain why Alice has
                       not determined [by way of empirical test] that the reading d/c on clock C0 coincides with the two clock
                       syncing events (at C1 and C2) in her frame. It helps to explain why why she must assume the simultaneity
                       of those events.

Contestant: hmmmm.....

....

Alex Treebek: ......5 seconds....

Contestant: ....What is the determination that the speed of light is finite and not infinite/instantaneous?


Alex Trebek: Is.....correct! You've won today's daily double. Indeed, the relevance of Rømer's discovery to
                       Special Relativity is not always well understood. Bcos the speed of light is finite, Alice cannot make an
                       observation of the spatially separted events that correspond to the reading of d/c on her clock because
                       she must wait for the light signal from those events to travel back to her. She therefore cannot verify the
                       statement about the physical world which she has derived from her mathematical model, that is, she
                       cannot test her mathematical statement [about the physical world] empirically, meaning that it is a
                       statement whose validdity can only be assumed in the domain of empiricism. Because this statement
                       forms a critical part of her conclusion she therefore is assuming her conclusion. Emprically speaking of
                       course. But you knew that contestant, bos you won the Daily Double.

Alice's Shoes
It really needn't be this difficult to see. Just put yourself in Alice's shoes. You've finished all the math, you'e derived all your statements, now your ready to jump back into the real-world, the physical world, the world where the rules of empiricism apply.

You are located at the mid-point between two clocks; you have your own clock; you send out a light pulse from the mid-point to each clock. Can you be sure that the light pulses reached each clock simultaneously? Can you be sure that at the moment your clock read the time d/c, the light pulses were making physical contact with the other two clocks? Imagine that you repeat the word "now" continuously throughout the process - as you send the light signal you say "now1", when your clock reads 0.5d/c you say "now2", when it reads d/c you say "now3", when it reads 2d/c you say "now4". You can verify empirically the location of the light signals when you said "now4" - they are co-located with you.

How can you empirically determine the physical location of the light signals at the moment when you say "now3"; how can you determine that the light signals are physically co-located with the clocks at C1 and C2 at the moment you say "now3"?

You simply cannot, you can only assume that the signals are co-located with the clocks C1 and C2 when you say "now3".

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

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



Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #81 on: 10/07/2019 08:01:57 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
But, just as the rules of empiricism do not govern mathematics, neither do the rules of mathematics govern empiricism.
You probably don't mean that mathematics cannot be used in physics, so not sure what you mean by this.  Most of SR theory is mathematical.  There are some empirical predictions of course, but we don't seem to be in disagreement about those, only the mathematical parts.
I meant as I said. The rules of empiricism do not govern mathematics. We don't make observations in mathematics bcos mathematics isn't an empirical discipline. Mathematics is a tool that can be used in physics, although its usefulness appears to have lead some - not necessarily you - to conflate mathematics with empiricism. The term "physics" is a broad term which covers the theoretical and the empirical part. Mathematics falls into the former category. But mathematics on its own isn't science. Science is an empirical discipline. Mathematics is a tool which can be used to derive predictions and model the physical world. If the predictions derived from the mathematics is contradicted by empirical tests then it is the mathematics which needs adjusting. Empirical observation trumps mathematically derived predictions.

We can derive statements about the physical world from SR. When assessed in the context of empiricism, the conclusion of RoS is assumed - again, this is in the context of empiricism. If you are saying that RoS is a purely mathematical artefact which bears no resemblance to the physical world then you will find I'm in agreement.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
No it doesn't.  If the model predicts one thing and empirical measurement yields another, then the model does not correspond to reality, but the mathematics in the model is not wrong because of it.  The model is the wrong one, not the mathematics.
The corresponence of the model to the physical reality is precisely the point.

If the model makes a prediction about the physical world which cannot be observed it is an untestable prediction. If an oberver makes a conlusion about the physical world that relies on that untestable prediction, then they are assuming a conclusion about the physical world.

You are either confusing the conclusions of the mathematical model with the conclusions drawn from the actual empirical evidence, or you are saying that certain aspects of the model does not represent the physical reality of the physical reality it purports to model.

If you are saying that the RoS aspect of the SR model does not represent the physical world, that it does not correspond to physial reality, then we are probably in agreement.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Not all theories have mathematical formalization, and not all mathematical formalism is part of theories. The hard sciences (like we're discussing here) tend to be quite mathematical, but something like psychological theory might not as much.  What defines a theory is empirical predictions.  Hence something like string theory (insanely heavy on the mathematics) is arguably not a theory since it has yet to make a prediction.  Quantum field theory is a theory, but pilot wave theory is not.
Interpretations get into the metaphysics. One can choose to totally skip the metaphysics and just work with the theory raw.  That's what Alice could be said to be doing if you keep metaphysical claims out of her conclusions.
That is fine. What we are doing is discussing the intepretations. The SR interpretation and those other interpretations that are mathematically and empirically equivalent to SR.

The empirical equivalence might be a bit of a misnomer bcos it could be taken to suuggest that they predict the same things, when in actuality it means that all empirical tests to date have falsified none of the interpretations. The Michael Tooley interpretation (which appears to be the same as an Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation) doesn't predict reciprocal time dilation in the manner that SR does.

A note on the imprecise usage of terms
I understand the above, but if I were to put it into words myself I would probably use the terms imprecisely. That wouldn't mean that I don't understand the idea just that the terms I'm using might not necessarily mean exactly what I think they mean. This leads to confusion and is totally on me. Just to clarify what I mean by that.

If, in my mind, I am imagining a vessel out of which one can drink and I label it "spoon" and I say "he pours the drink into the spoon". The issue isn't that I don't know the concept of the drinking vessel, it's that I'm using an imprecise term to label it. Again, this is entirely on me, but it might be helpful to state it for the purpose of this discussion.
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #82 on: 10/07/2019 08:03:07 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
If so, then we can conclude that the relativity of simultaneity isn't derived from the mathematics.
No idea how you conclude that. I challenge you to derive it without mathematics.
Bcos Lorentz-Poincare theory employs the same mathematics but doesn't include RoS.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
They're not equivalent at all.  Again, trying implementing a speed limit sign using the alternate interpretation, and you'll see the difference in the mathematics.  I notice you didn't respond to that.
See how Poincare derived Lorentz transformation and you will see how there is no difference.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
RoS is derived from the theory which defines simultaneity in a empirical (physical) way.
An absolute interpretation.discards that definition (and several others) in favor of metaphysical ones.
Except that it can't be determined empirically - in any of the interpretations.See Romer and the finite speed of light.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
I'm considering the interpretation that makes no additional metaphysical assumptions (raw SR theory). Lacking a conflicting assumption, I can hope this prevents conflict with an interpretation that makes some.
...

The predictions were not derived from any interpretation, which makes none.  You describe no predictions above except the simultaneous return of the signals.  The rest is just abstract mathematical statements.  They could become metaphysical statements had there been any metaphysical premises, but I'm avoiding them for the moment to make the point that the definitions don't require them.
Anyway, I more or less agree with the description until it got into a description of what the scientists may or may not have accepted or decided needed testing.  The philosophers maybe.  Their job is to sort out the sorts of things being debated in this thread.
When you say "raw SR theory" do you mean the mathematics of the Lorentz Transformation?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
SR is a theory.  The absolute interpretation of it is still SR. If SR fails in a prediction, any absolute interpretation goes down with it.
If both are referred to as SR theory, then SR theory cannot imply relativity of simultaneity because simultaneity is absolute in the absolutist interpretation. If SR theory implied RoS then RoS would - by necessity - be implicit in any absolute intepretation. This simply isn't the case - unless you're positing Schroedingers Special Relativity.

I'm sure you will have been able to deduce that we are discussing Einstein's interpretation versus absolute interpretations.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Interestingly, SR claims up front not to correspond to reality except locally, so there are plenty of non-local tests to falsify it as a model of the universe at medium scales.  Simplest test is the inability to sync a pair of clocks on different floors of a building.  So there likewise needs to be an absolute interpretation of GR theory.
I'm arguing that it doesn't correspond to reality locally.

If you check out the paper you will see I advocate for such an absolutist interpretation of GR. If RoS is dropped then, "hey presto" you've got yourself an absolute interpretation of GR.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Interpretations don't have empirical consequences.
They imply empirical consequences. The returning of the light signals simultaneously is an empirically testable consequence in all interpretations.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
This is partly the reason why the intuitive response to reading Alice and Bob is to make the assumption that the premises of SR are implied. But we're not doing that. We're assuming the premises of no interpretation.
That's what I've been doing as well.  Still assuming the premises of the theory, which is OK since they're empirical premises.
We're talking about the interpretations. But, given that you believe that RoS is a consequence of the mathematics, it is understandable how you might make that mistake.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
The conclusions they draw are often pure mathematical abstract conclusions.  'Clock at A is in sync with clock at B' is a pure mathematical abstract conclusion, not a metaphysical one.  'Clock A is in sync with Clock B' on the other hand is worded as a metaphysical statement.  Hence me being picky about the difference.
When we jump into the real world, "Clock at A" represents a physical clock which can be labelled "Clock A". Indeed, the location "A" is represented by a mark on the floor of a spaceship whos inertial motion cannot be determined.

Alice, standing mid-way between the clock at A (in her spaceship) and the clock at B (in her spaceship) sends out a light signal to both those locations (on her spaceship). She cannot determine that the time (as measured by her physical clock) taken by the light signal to travel to Clock A, located at point A (on her spaceship), is the same time (as measured by her physical clock) taken to travel to Clock B, located at point B (on her spaceship). She also cannot conirm that the time (as measured by her physical clock) for both signal to arrive at the points A and B (on her spaceship) is d/c.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
H-K was an empirical exercise, not an abstract one or a thought experiment. It is in fact the first empirical verification of the twins experiment. One may be free to interpret the results in different ways, but the point was the empirical comparison done at the end coupled with an empirical history of the journey taken by each device.
Our discussing the H-K experiment is abstract bcos we are not in commerical airliners with atomic clocks. The thought experiments are abstract in this sense, not in a mathematical sense. If it were logistically possible, the thought experiment could be carried out as an empirical exercise. So, it is not abstract in the sense that mathematics is abstract, which was the implication of your statement (whether you realised it or not).

We don't need to interpret the results any differently, we can just recognise that one reference frame is privileged over the other. The mountain cannot go to Mohammed, so Mohammed has to go to the mountain.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Beg to differ.  There are spaceships out there whose navigation depends on GR.  There are clocks moved at very high speeds with predicted results.  One can call them space ships if it satisfies some requirement. The thought experiments might help initially work out the details of the theory, but in a thread like this, those thought experiments are just illustrations of the established theory, not means by which new discoveries are expected to be made. We both assume the theory to be sound when we discuss them. I have little personal means to verify it myself.
We're not making new discoveries through the thought experiments, we are deducing what the different interpretations imply, and what they have implied all along.
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #83 on: 10/07/2019 08:08:51 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
OK, so you mean metaphysical assumption when you say this.  Perhaps you also mean metaphysical consequences when speaking of 'empirical consequences of interpretations'.  This sort of language abuse is rapidly destroying our ability to communicate.  'Empirical' and 'metaphysical' are mutually exclusive.  As soon as some finding becomes empirical, it ceases to be interpretation. You walk out of the cave and see what causes the shadows on the wall for the first time.  The various interpretations of those shadows are now empirically validated or falsified theories and are no longer interpretations.
Maybe you had started replying before I had a chance to edit the post bcos I had forgotten to include the contextual examples. They have been included again here. See below.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Understood, but I refuse to use this wording myself.  It seems intentionally designed to mislead. We need a word to replace 'empirical' then, something to mean what actually can be observed, because you're destroyed that meaning.  Communication not possible with no word that means that anymore.
See contextual examples below

But, as I have pointed out, the choice of adjective is immaterial. It's "a rose by any other name". Empirical/metaphysical/tacit/implicit/etc./etc. assumptions are assumptions. If you are assuming your conclusion empirically or metaphysically, it makes no difference. It is circular reasoning.




Empirical Assumptions - Contextual examples

Quote
Lloyd (1988: 2), a philosopher of evolutionary biology, stated that, ―Under a general hypothetico-deductive view of theories, a theory is understood as offering hypotheses from which, in combination with empirical assumptions, deductions can be made regarding empirical results.

Quote
Why look at the deflection of a particle’s trajectory in an electromagnetic field in order to measure its charge? – and doing so will demand a large number of auxiliary empirical assumptions.
Cartwright, Nancy D. (2009) 'What is this thing called 'ecacy'?',

Quote
The model solves for the mass evolution based on what are thought to be the dominant input boundary conditions. Some empirical assumptions are made to predict the behavior of lower order physics.
//proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1605299

Quote
By identifying the energy that must be absorbed through deformation of the vehicle’s roof using the FMVSS 216 five inches (127 mm) of roof crush strength limit as a constraint, it was possible to calculate theoretically using some broad empirical assumptions generated from rollover crash test data, Vehicle roof strength as it relates to contained occupant injury prevention during rollover crashes
Young, D. P., Grzebieta R.H


Quote
one word of caution is that the Doppler Dimming method strongly depends on empirical assumptions of the electron density and ion temperature, thus possibly leading to different results with different assumptions (Wilhelm et al. 2011).
//iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/109/meta
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #84 on: 10/07/2019 08:09:38 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Again, the 2nd is a physical statement, the 1st an abstract one.  Both are statements about the physical configuration, so I agree with you as you word it.
Both are statements about the physical system. Only one of them can be verified empirically, therefore the other is a statement about the physical system whose validity can only be assumed.

Given that the conclusion of RoS includes, and is completely dependent upon this statement, it follows that the conclusion of RoS is assumed.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
It is derived from his convention.  There is no interpretational component to that.
The convention depends on the isotropic one-way speed of light reltive to all co-ordinate systems. That is only part off the SR interpretation.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
It's entirely testable. He put a way to do it in his paper. That demonstration involves purely empirical methods, so it can very much be verified empirically.
Your problem seems to be an assumption that Einstein is making a sort of metaphysical statement by #1. But it's just an abstract statement, and one that can be tested.
Put yourself in Alice's shoes. Send the light signal to the clock at A and B (the points marked on the floor of your spaceship). Now, what is the empirical evidence that allows you to verify that Clock A located at point A (on your spaceship) is synced with Clock B located at point B (on your spaceship)?

Bear in mind that subtracting the values on the clocks and getting the same figures also verifies that the clocks, at those locations, are not synced.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
A metaphysical assertion (had one been made) would not be observable.  The abstract thing is quite observable.  You're confusing the two.  No such statement of the former has been made, nor derived.
How does Alice observe that the physical photons make physical contact with the physical clocks located at the points A and B on her physical spaceship at the moment that coincides with the reading d/c on clock C0?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
In the domain of empiricism, something which is unobserved or unobservable constitutes an "empirical assumption".
As I said, I understand what you mean by this, but will not accept the language since doing so would deprive me of a word I need for its defined purpose.
See the contextual examples.

But if you don't want to call it an "empirical" assumption it doesn't change the fact of circular reasoning.
Logged
 



Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #85 on: 10/07/2019 08:10:17 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
The intepretation makes a claim about the configuration of the physical system.
The theory (not any interpretation) makes this abstract claim about the configuration of the physical system.  The theory isn't based on any new assumptions, so it is hard to contest.
The abstract claim is based on the one-way speed of light. The theory, as you define the term, doesn't make this metaphysical assumption, the interpretation does.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
1) Reading [d/c] on clock C0 = physical claim
That's an empty physical claim, standing in opposition to one where the clock doesn't read that at some point, like it skips over some times or something.  It wouldn't be a clock if this claim was unrealistic.  And it's clock at C0 BTW.
That clock C0 located at C0 on the physical spaceship will read d/c is a physical claim. It is a claim that says this will be a reading on the physical clock which will not be skipped over.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Again, all empty claims, in opposition to an interpretation that the light signals were diverted elsewhere.  None of these are claims.  They're descriptions of events, using wording that frames (most of) them in an abstract coordinate system.
Indeed, in opposition to an interpretation that the light signals were diverted elsewhere, the physical claim implies that they aren't deflected elsewhere and that such an interpretation isn't under consideration.

A physical photon making physical contact with a physical contact, is a physical statement. An abstract co-ordinate system can be employed to describe these in an abstract manner, but if that co-ordinate system claims to represent the physical world then that abstract description becomes a physical claim.

If the contention is that the co-ordinate reference system in no way represents the physical world, then there is no issue.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
4) 2 & 3 coinciding with 1 = physical claim
Abstract (neither physical nor metaphysical) claim.  Your insistence otherwise seems the source of our disagreement, and the source of my labeling your wording as strawman.
The sourse of the misunderstanding is that you cannot recognise that the abstract mathematical claim is a claim about a physical system. If it remains in the abstract mathematical domain and isn't put forward as a model of the pyhsical system, that is, if it is stated categorically that it does not represent an accurate model of the physical world, then yes it is a purely abstract claim.

If it pesters its mommy to let it play in the real world, then its mommy will tell it that it has to play by real world rules. In the domain of the real world, where the rules of empiricism govern, the abstract claim becomes a physical claim which needs to be tested empirically.
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #86 on: 10/07/2019 08:10:56 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
In relatively moving frames, 1,2,3,5 are not established.  #4 is demonstrated only in one frame and unknown (without employing further methods) in other frames.  The sync test cannot be performed in other frames, and we've not devised a means here to demonstrate whether or not they're in sync in a given one.  But I deny that at this point b) has been demonstrated.  Bob hasn't done this.
Except, #4 isn't demonstrated in that one frame, it is assumed - which is the point entirely.

Alice performs the sync test. The results come back inconclusive. Therefore, #4 isn't demonstrated to her, she can only choose to assume the validity of #4 or, equally, assume that it is not valid.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Alice has not concluded RoS.  That comes from the SR, not from new experimentation.  If you don't assume the empirical premises of SR, it doesn't follow.  Newton didn't posit RoS because he was unaware of the empirical premises in question.  It follows quite trivially from empirical evidence.  You don't need to do any arithmetic to conclude it.
Making your way thru the history book I see. Get back to me when you reach Lorentz and Poincare and the empirical equivalence of  their interpretation and SR.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
I'm mostly talking about the theory here, not somebody else's interpretation of it.  I won't go so far as to assert that there is no metaphysical language used in Einstein's works, but I'm not relying on it.
...
It is not.  It is never concluded from SR.  Only certain (most/all) interpretations assume this, but not the theory itself, and RoS is derived from the theory, not any interpretation.
An interpretation that has metaphysically direction-dependent light speed is functionally equivalent to a coordinate system with non-orthogonal axes.  While it is mathematically valid to do this, one might wonder why one would wish to adopt such an interpretation.
You inadvertentyl are though. You are conflating Eisntein's intepretation with the underlying mathematics. This is completely understsandable, given how it is taught and given the mainstream adoption of Einstein's interpretation.

The same mathematics has been derived from the Lorentz-Poincare interpretation. The LP interpretation does not include RoS therefore the mathematical theory cannot be said to necessitate it.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
  Anyway, in such an interpretation, Einstein's convention still works and Alice's clocks are still in sync in her frame by that convention.  It works because the convention doesn't reference any metaphysical assumptions.
You're assuming the validity of the convention, which is not a given.


Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Of course not.  RoS isn't such a statement at all, as I've said for countless posts.  You're just now getting that?
...
Since absolute simultaneity is a metaphysical premise, it doesn't conflict since they're in unrelated realms.  So agree.
So simultaneity is both absolute and relative?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
No such concept has been introduced by the theory.  The absolute interpretation introduces that concept and thus gives meaning to a variant to that question, and yes, even that can be verified by Einstein's convention (if you choose to use the convention).  What cannot be verified is the clocks being at respective locations C0, C1, and C2, so the test can at best assume they are at those locations, or not assume it and declare that this physical sync cannot be determined.
"If you choose to use that convention" means, if you assume the validity of the convention.

That isn't being granted. Which is why the statement about synced clock - as it appears in Einstein's SR - is an assumption.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Hard to parse that.  I presume we're using Einstein's definitions here, in which case, yes, of course.  The events are simultaneous in one coordinate system and not the other.  Both are abstract statements.
You're back to assuming that Alice is an SR girl, living in an SR world - I've repeatedly stated, that is not a given.

The validity of the sync convention cannot be assumed. That luxry is not being granted!
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #87 on: 10/07/2019 08:11:37 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Abstract simultaneity convention is something like this:  You select an arbitrary coordinate system of 4 orthogonal axes in spacetime and draw a line from each event tangent to the temporal axis.  If the two tangent lines meet the arbitrarily selected axis at the same point, they will also have that property with any line parallel to the selected one.  It is the orientation, not location, that counts.  Anyway, if that abstract condition is met, the events are simultaneous by definition of the convention.  There is no metaphysical statement of simultaneity implied by that.  It is an abstract statement made about a physical system.  The description here speaks of events and not of synced clocks.  The latter are not events.
All such coordinate systems are mathematically equivalent, and the property will not be met with some of them using the same two events.  That is another way of answering your question above.
OK, outline how this correesponds to the real-world, making reference to physical clocks, physical photons, and physical readings on physical clocks.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
I didn't say the clock in the next room reads d/c.  I said it does in the coordinate system where the rooms are at a fixed location.  The latter is not a physical statement, but an abstract one.
The point of physics is to describe the physical world, not an abstract world that has no correspondence to reality.


Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
are you saying that SR does not confict with, or make any claims/statements/etc. which contradict the absolutist interpretations?
The theory doesn't, no.  An interpretation of it might, but I have a hard time thinking even of that one.
If by the theory you mean the underlying mathematics then agreed, but only bcos the mathematics doesn't imply anything about the simultaneity of events. The mathematics provides a co-ordinate description of events, metaphysica assumptions about the nature of time determine claims about simultaneity.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
It isn't concluded nor even assumed, and there are all these sites that show it can't be done, so it obviously isn't needed by the theory at all, which needed no modification due to the inability to show this.  It uses a convention with coordinate systems with orthogonal axes.  It is a definition of a convention, not an assumption about the underlying reality that isn't needed for statements not concerning that underlying reality.
Not sure I've parsed this one correctly, but if we are still talking about Einstein's convention here, then we are not granting its validity.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 01:49:40
Quote
If you're arguing that she doesn't assume isoptropy
If she's using just the theory and no interpretational baggage, then yes, I'm arguing that.
Then she doesn't conclude RoS bcos the L-P interpretation uses the same theory/mathematics and doesn't include RoS
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #88 on: 10/07/2019 09:30:42 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
He does not give it that meaning, which is why of course all the denial sites gather like flies around that passage.
I may have misundestood when you said "...'the stationary system', the term only has meaning in an absolute interpretation". I was just pointing out that it doesn't only have meaning in an absolute interpretation.

Again, see the point about the identity of indiscernibles and how Einstein's treatment of co-ordinate systems is indiscernible from treating them as being at absolute rest. Not just in name, but in the mathematical formulation of them.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
I meant that also.  A statement is not a prediction.  A prediction is an anticipated result of a measurement.  The word implies the measurement has not yet been performed.
If the one-way speed of light can be measured - a proposition you and others seem to be optimisic about - then it represents a prediction. If the one-way speed of light cannot be measured, then the simultaneity of clock syncing events is an untestable prediction. Just bcos something cannot be measured it doesn't mean its not a prediction, it just means that it is an untestable one.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
I said it wasn't a prediction, not that it wasn't a physical statement.  Predictions are used to verify/falsify a theory.  A theory that doesn't make a distinct prediction isn't a theory, however blue in the face it might turn describing a physical system.
Quote
Some of the string theorists' tribulations regarding untestable predictions are shared by epidemiologists and other researchers
...
When the causal effect of interest is ill defined, the counterfactual theory of causal inference from observational data and the elegant statistical methods derived from it lead to predictions that are untestable.
//academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/162/7/618/204321

Here's a google scholar search that specifically looks for "untestable predictions" and "physics". Some of the papers are behind payways, but the relevant part of the text shows up in the search.
://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22untestable+predictions%22+%22physics%22&btnG=

Quote
Untestable predictions and hypotheses lie outside the realm of science. Suppose someone told you, for example, that lightning storms are caused by angry ghosts. If this is true, you would predict that when ghosts are angry, there will be more lightning storms. It's not a valid scientific hypothesis, however, because neither the proposed explanation nor its predictions are testable. There is no possible experiment you can design to determine whether ghosts are angry and whether their wrath is correlated with the incidence of thunderstorms, so the hypothesis and its predictions are completely untestable.
//sciencing.com/testable-prediction-8646215.html

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
A local comparison is not frame dependent.  That comparison can be (and was) done in any frame.  It isn't possible to not be in the other frames.  H-K beginning and end events were not done by equipment that was stationary in the same frame as each other.  It was an unnecessary requirement and no care was taken to do so.  Likewise with the twins at both ends of the journey.  The requirement is that they be together.  That's all.  Comparisons are objective if they're local.  I suppose mass comparisons are not.
...
Again, you are redefining the term from the way say Minkowski or Galileo define it, but since we have an alternate term, communication isn't as hampered.
I didn't say it was frame dependent, I said that it privileges the reference frame in which the local comparison is made. The H-K comparison was done in the "at rest relative to the Earth frame", where the Airplanes had to accelerate and decelerate to come to be at rest reltive to the earth. It wouldn't have been practical to accelerate and decelerate the Earth while the airplane was in the air - as I'm sure you understand.

This is from the Pablo Acuna paper I have referenced several times:
Quote
If we apply Occam‘s razor and excise the ether from Lorentz‘s theory, what we obtain is not special relativity. It is still possible to retain the Newtonian space-time plus conspiring dynamical effects by defining by fiat a privileged reference frame. For example, the Lorentzian could baldly say that the privileged frame is the one in which the real time is measured, period.
On the Empirical Equivalence between  Special Relativity and Lorentz’s Ether Theory by Pablo Acuna. I can send a copy of the paper if you like - is it possible to add attachments to PMs on here?

So, as you can see the privileged reference frame can be any reference frame where "real time" is defined, it isn't a requirement that it be the absolute rest frame. In an atemporal interpretation the need to define "real time" is also eliminated.


Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
An intertial frame cannot be accelerated.  An accelerated frame can, but it has different properties.
A spaceship represents an inertial frame - perhaps you mean inertial co-orddinate frame - a spaceship can be accelerated.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
That's fine.  She didn't conclude it from that since it is true in any frame, and the clocks are not synced in them all.
That is the only empirical evidence available to her. If she didn't conclude it from empirical evidence, then she must be be assuming it.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
I mean what I said and not what you said.  I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.  I'm not comitting the strawman fallacy since the statement makes no claims (false or otherwise) about what some interpretation might assert.  Not sure what you think a strawman is.  I just made a claim and invite being corrected.  I might be wrong on this one.
I believe you are wrong about this one. Given that you don't usually find yourself "in these waters" it is not surprising that you might not realise the fact that that the underlying mathematics or "the theory" is the same for both interpretations - Poincare derived the Lorentz contraction independently of Einstein and from Lorentz's theory.

So, if you say you are comparing the "raw theory" to the mathematics of the absolute interpretation, then you are in actual fact not comparing one thing to another, because there is only one thing and no other. It's the same mathematics for both.

If you are comparing the "raw theory" to the absolute interpretation (not just the mathematics) then you are comparing apples to oranges. You need to be comparing one interpretation to the other.

Given that the mathematics is the same for both interpretations, but one interpretation has  RoS included while the other doesn't, then it follows that RoS isn't a consequence of the mathematics, it is a consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the interpretations.

It's understandable that you might not be aware of this bcos of how relativity is generally taught.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 04:49:26
Neither a theory.  If either is a theory, what prediction does it make?  It's an interpretation until it has a falsification test.
I quoted the prediction it makes, it predicts that the one-way speed of light is not isotropic relative to all reference frames. Esseentially, it predicts that, if the one-way speed of light can be measured then absolute motion could be determined. If the one-way speed of light is found to be isotropic relative to all inertial frames, the theory is falsified.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2019 10:11:28 by the_roosh »
Logged
 



Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #89 on: 10/07/2019 10:09:26 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
It was brought up due to its relevance to a sync convention being discussed.  Sync convention is relevant to this thread topic.
And I referened literature that highlighted the problem that has, thus far, beset all such sync conventions. Conventions much more sophisticated that Romers.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
So to repeat, I brought it up as a relevant example of a different sync convention.  I persisted with it because you suggested that he cannot have done what he did (which was measuring light speed utilizing a one-way method, not measuring the one-way speed of light).
And I repeat, measuring the one-way speed of light requires the syncing of two spatially separated clocks, which requires an accurate measurement of the one-way speed of light which requires the syncing of two spatially separated clocks, which requires a an accurate measurement of the one-way speed of light which requires.....

see where I'm going with this?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
You still deny it!  This is the 2nd reason why I didn't let it drop.  SR says the method is valid and should yield exactly c.  The theory says that, not any interpretation. It follows trivially from the empirical premises of SR. If your interpretation denies this, it is wrong.
SR says Romers method is valid and should yield exactly c? How did that work out can you tell me?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
Your claim of there being issues with a defined convention is noted.  What do you think a convention is?  Is that another word that is going to get redefined?
In the context of Einstein's sync convention it means something which is established without being empirical verified/verifiable.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
I never meant that. He was measuring SoL using a one way method.
He was demonstrating that the speed of light was finite as opposed to the assumption at the time, that it was infinite/instantaneous. I'm not even sure he was trying to measure the speed of light, but given the measurements he did make, he arrived at a value.

If I'm measuring Usain Bolt's speed as he runs the 100m and I use imprecise methods of time keeping and get a value 25% less than the official Olympic measurement, have I really measured Usain Bolt's speed? Or have I just arrived at some value that doesn't actually represent his speed?

Would I have a better chance of measuring his speed if I could use and sync two spatially separated clocks - one at the starting line and one at the finish line?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
If you could meausre 1WSoL, yes, but that doesn't mean that SoL cannot be measured using a one way method. If it yields c every time (as PoR say it must), then no absolute motion can be detected.  Tooley is quite right about this.
If you can propose a method of measuring the 1WSoL that doesn't require the syncing of spatially separated clocks (by convention) or that doesn't make assumptions pertaining to the rigidy of the bodies used in the measurement, then fame and notoriety await you.

Tooley's point is that any philosophical reason for favoring Einstein's interpretation over an interpretation based on an absolute reference frame is rendered null and void, because the testing of the 1WSoL represents the falsification test for both.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 05:27:19
Quote
This leads to slightly different conclusions than SR, but not in terms of things that can actually be tested.
Yes, they're different conclusions, but not conflicting ones.  All interpretations (if they add premises) make additional conclusions based on those added premises.  You have been calling this circular reasoning, but I have not.
We might be talking about slightly different things here. I'm talking about the idea that an interpretation of relativity that incorporates an absolute reference frame - with two frames moving relatively to that, where the Lorentz Transformation is used between the absolutely moving frames - does not predict reciprocal time dilation the way Einstein's interpretation does. In the absolute interpretations both Alice and Bob's clocks are slowed.

If it were a simple case of comparing the two clocks without needing to reuinite them, Alice would see the photon in her light clock travel the perpendicular distance between the mirrors of her light clock, while she would see the photon in Bob's clock travel the longer perpendicular distance.

The critical difference is that the duration of both would be the same. That is, the photon in Alice's clock would reach the opposite mirror at the same instant as it does in Bob's clock. From this Alice would either conclude that the photon travels faster in Bob's clock or that the photon in her clock actually travels the longer distance too.

It is the need to reuinte the measurement instruments which circumvents this fact and which reduces it to the kind of privileged reference frame theory I have been "redefininig". The same is true for Einstein's interpretation.
Logged
 

Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2208
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 169 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #90 on: 10/07/2019 13:11:23 »
Quote from: the_roosh on 09/07/2019 17:13:59
Apologies, I don't really understand the analogy. The speed limit sign can still imply relative to the road.
Yes it can, and is, because the mathematics is far simpler if a relative interpretation is used.  That was my point.  You claim the mathematics is the same.

Quote from: Halc on 08/07/2019 21:53:13
That's a redefinition of how the term is used in physics.  Perhaps you should choose another one.  Why do reunited instruments need a frame?  They can reunite on the fly, comparing results at some event as they pass.  Events don't have frames.
If they could compare on the fly then we could have Alice and Bob compare recciprocal time dilation on the fly[/quote]What is 'reciprocal time dilation' and how is it different from the comparison made with everybody with identical motion?

Quote
but that would, of course give rise to a paradox bcos it would require Alice to show that Bob's clock ticks slower than hers, while Bob shows that Alice's clock ticks slower than his.
A comparison of respective elapsed time has nothing to do with the tick rates of either clock.  You read what each clock says and subtract.  The rates of the clocks play no rote in that calculation.  The twins experiment can be described without any acceleration at all using nothing but pure inertial clocks that are never stationary relative to each other and never accelerated.

Quote
but, as we can from things like the Twin-paradox and Hafele-Keating experiments, measuring instruments must be reunited in a single frame
That is a requirement of neither test.  I don't think you know your theory at all.

Quote
are you from the UK btw?
I'd say 'maths' and 'centre' if I was.
Quote
And yep, the meter was ... relative to the Earth, calculating the circumference.
OK, 1/40000000th of the circumference of Earth as it was known at the time.  If that's so, it is based on some Earth dimension.  You'd think they'd make it divisible by 360 or something.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Empirical measurements agree with that and much more.  Why not take the full statement that all of EM is included in principle of relativity?  That doesn't assume anything, and it includes your subset principle.  Why go for the weak premise when there's a stronger empirical one?
I am familiar with the idea, but only in the context of SR. If it implies the one-way speed of light, then I've stated the issues with that.
It doesn't obviously since it's been well pointed out that there is no empirical test for that.
Logged
 

Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2208
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 169 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #91 on: 10/07/2019 13:31:19 »
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:00:32
Just put yourself in Alice's shoes. You've finished all the math, you'e derived all your statements, now your ready to jump back into the real-world, the physical world, the world where the rules of empiricism apply.

You are located at the mid-point between two clocks; you have your own clock; you send out a light pulse from the mid-point to each clock. Can you be sure that the light pulses reached each clock simultaneously?
No, since she cannot determine that she remains at that location.  Good thing she never claimed to have done what you ask.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2019 13:41:34 by Halc »
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #92 on: 10/07/2019 13:42:22 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
Yes it can, and is, because the mathematics is far simpler if a relative interpretation is used.  That was my point.  You claim the mathematics is the same.
I meant both use the Mathematics of the Lorentz transformations to make predictions. I'm not aware of any attempt by the city council to implement road signage in the absolute reference frame - mind you, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of some sort of executive committee charged with the tast of using public fuding to find the absolute reference frame.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
What is 'reciprocal time dilation' and how is it different from the comparison made with everybody with identical motion?
://lmgtfy.com/?q=reciprocal+time+dilation

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
A comparison of respective elapsed time has nothing to do with the tick rates of either clock.  You read what each clock says and subtract.  The rates of the clocks play no rote in that calculation.  The twins experiment can be described without any acceleration at all using nothing but pure inertial clocks that are never stationary relative to each other and never accelerated.
Alice and Bob moving relative to each other. Alice sees Bob's clock running slow. Bob sees Alice's clock running slow.

How do you compare clocks on the fly to show that Alice's clock runs slower than Bob's and that Bob's clock runs slower than Alice's? I'm genuinely not sure about this one. I'm sure I've seen the answer before but it doesn't come to mind. If you outline it, we can dissect it.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
That is a requirement of neither test.  I don't think you know your theory at all.
So, in the H-K experiment the clocks aren't brought back together to a position at rest relative to the Earth?

You allude to a different formulation of the twin-paradox, which I'm not familiar with. Again, happy to dissect it.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
I'd say 'maths' and 'centre' if I was.
It was your use of the term "arse" as opposed to "ass" that had me wondering.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:11:23
OK, 1/40000000th of the circumference of Earth as it was known at the time.  If that's so, it is based on some Earth dimension.  You'd think they'd make it divisible by 360 or something.
Yep, both it and "the second" are defined in a geocentric reference frame.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2019 13:47:55 by the_roosh »
Logged
 



Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #93 on: 10/07/2019 13:46:40 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 13:31:19
No, since she cannot determine that she remains at that location.  Good thing she never claimed to have done what you ask.
I presume you mean that she cannot determine that she, along with the spaceship and everything on board, remains at the same location, yes? Bcos she can obviously determine that she has stayed in the same location on the spaceship.
Logged
 

Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2208
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 169 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #94 on: 10/07/2019 14:08:14 »
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:01:57
If you are saying that RoS is a purely mathematical artefact which bears no resemblance to the physical world then you will find I'm in agreement.
And yet pages later you go on about it.  It may or may not bear a resemblance to the physical world.  I'm not claiming it one way or the other.  Such would be a metaphysical claim.

Quote
If the model makes a prediction about the physical world which cannot be observed it is an untestable prediction. If an oberver makes a conlusion about the physical world that relies on that untestable prediction, then they are assuming a conclusion about the physical world.
Again we agree. 

Quote
You are either confusing the conclusions of the mathematical model with the conclusions drawn from the actual empirical evidence, or you are saying that certain aspects of the model does not represent the physical reality of the physical reality it purports to model.
I'm not the one calling unobservables 'predictions'.  I made none of those, having laid no claim of correspondence of an abstract thing to physical reality.


Quote
What we are doing is discussing the intepretations. The SR interpretation and those other interpretations that are mathematically and empirically equivalent to SR.
I don't know which SR interpretation you are referencing.  I'm talking about the blank interpretation that makes no additional premises from the ones in the theory.  So there is no 'the SR interpretation'.  All (even the absolute ones) are SR interpretations.

Quote
The empirical equivalence might be a bit of a misnomer bcos it could be taken to suuggest that they predict the same things, when in actuality it means that all empirical tests to date have falsified none of the interpretations.
By definition, yes.
Quote
The Michael Tooley interpretation (which appears to be the same as an Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation) doesn't predict reciprocal time dilation in the manner that SR does.
In fact it doesn't predict anything at all, else it would not be an interpretation.
Logged
 

Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2208
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 169 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #95 on: 10/07/2019 14:56:19 »
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:03:07
Lorentz-Poincare theory employs the same mathematics but doesn't include RoS.
Poincare derived RoS before anybody else, but their interpretation uses a non-empirically defined coordinate system to define simultaneity.  Einstein used a defined coordinate system.  Lorentz-Poincare does not.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
I'm considering the interpretation that makes no additional metaphysical assumptions (raw SR theory).
When you say "raw SR theory" do you mean the mathematics of the Lorentz Transformation?
I mean the entire theory, not one little part of it.  The theory only uses empirical premises.  No assumptions.

Quote
If both are referred to as SR theory, then SR theory cannot imply relativity of simultaneity because simultaneity is absolute in the absolutist interpretation.
Again, it uses a non-empirical coordinate system to conclude that.

Quote
If SR theory implied RoS
It deduces RoS using the empirical convention to define simultaneity.  It doesn't imply it.  One is free to choose a different convention, but the convention is not a physical or metaphysical assumption of any sort.  Some interpretations use the same convention, but an undefined coordinate system posited by a non-empirical assumption.  That different kind of simultaneity may or may not be relative, but being based on an assumed premise, that kind of simultaneity becomes assumed and not testable.

Quote
I'm sure you will have been able to deduce that we are discussing Einstein's interpretation versus absolute interpretations.
Not talking about Einstein's interpretation because I don't have a list of his additional premises, so I'm going with just his theory sans additional premises.  I know he held additional premises, but the changed over time.  SR theory did not.  GR needed adjustments, but startlingly few.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
SR claims up front not to correspond to reality except locally, so there are plenty of non-local tests to falsify it as a model of the universe at medium scales
I'm arguing that it doesn't correspond to reality locally.
By corresponding, I mean empirical correspondence, as SR is an empirical theory.  If you argue it doesn't do this, then you claim a falsification test.  But I think you simply claim it doesn't correspond to metaphysical reality, which is fine since SR is a scientific theory and makes no metaphysical claims about the underlying reality.  Reality indeed has no correspondence to a theory that is mute on the subject.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Interpretations don't have empirical consequences.
They imply empirical consequences. The returning of the light signals simultaneously is an empirically testable consequence in all interpretations.
No it isn't.  It is a consequence of the theory upon which the interpretation is based.  An empirical consequence of an interpretation would be an additional prediction not made by the underlying theory.  If one were to exist, the 'interpretation' would cease to be an interpretation by definition.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
'Clock at A is in sync with clock at B' is a pure mathematical abstract conclusion, not a metaphysical one.  'Clock A is in sync with Clock B' on the other hand is worded as a metaphysical statement.  Hence me being picky about the difference.
When we jump into the real world, "Clock at A" represents a physical clock which can be labelled "Clock A". Indeed, the location "A" is represented by a mark on the floor of a spaceship whos inertial motion cannot be determined.
A mark on the floor does not designate a location since no definition of the floor being stationary has been established.  A coordinate system is required to do that, and 'Clock A' makes no reference at all to that essential coordinate system.  Thus no empirical conclusion can be drawn about Clock A, but one can be made about 'Clock at A'.

Quote
We don't need to interpret the results any differently, we can just recognise that one reference frame is privileged over the other. The mountain cannot go to Mohammed, so Mohammed has to go to the mountain.
1) Any experiment (twins, H-K) anything at all, can be done and analyzed in any frame.  It doesn't change the result.  2) Mohammad need not stop at the mountain any more than the mountain need stop at Mohammed.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2019 03:21:33 by Halc »
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #96 on: 10/07/2019 15:52:37 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:08:14
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:01:57
If you are saying that RoS is a purely mathematical artefact which bears no resemblance to the physical world then you will find I'm in agreement.
And yet pages later you go on about it.  It may or may not bear a resemblance to the physical world.  I'm not claiming it one way or the other.  Such would be a metaphysical claim.

Quote
If the model makes a prediction about the physical world which cannot be observed it is an untestable prediction. If an oberver makes a conlusion about the physical world that relies on that untestable prediction, then they are assuming a conclusion about the physical world.
Again we agree. 

Quote
What we are doing is discussing the intepretations. The SR interpretation and those other interpretations that are mathematically and empirically equivalent to SR.
I don't know which SR interpretation you are referencing.  I'm talking about the blank interpretation that makes no additional premises from the ones in the theory.  So there is no 'the SR interpretation'.  All (even the absolute ones) are SR interpretations.

Quote
The empirical equivalence might be a bit of a misnomer bcos it could be taken to suuggest that they predict the same things, when in actuality it means that all empirical tests to date have falsified none of the interpretations.
By definition, yes.
Quote
The Michael Tooley interpretation (which appears to be the same as an Etherless Lorentz-Poincare interpretation) doesn't predict reciprocal time dilation in the manner that SR does.
In fact it doesn't predict anything at all, else it would not be an interpretation.
It would appear that the issue lies in your mispprehension of the idea that RoS is part of the "raw" mathematics of the theory.

The problem is that it isn't. The reason we can deduce that it isn't derived from the "raw" mathematics is bcos it forms part of one interpretation but doesn't form part of the other. If it was part of the "raw theory" i.e. the mathematics it would, by necessity, form part of both interpretations.

The fact that it doesn't means that isn't part of the "blank" interpretation.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:08:14
I'm not the one calling unobservables 'predictions'.  I made none of those, having laid no claim of correspondence of an abstract thing to physical reality.
The key word is untestabl predictions. I've posted contextual examples. Just as I did for "empirical assumptions". Did you read them?

It appears we are both out of touch with the lingo in our own way.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2019 15:59:25 by the_roosh »
Logged
 



Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2208
  • Activity:
    24%
  • Thanked: 169 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #97 on: 10/07/2019 16:40:17 »
Quote from: the_roosh on 10/07/2019 08:09:38
The convention depends on the isotropic one-way speed of light reltive to all co-ordinate systems. That is only part off the SR interpretation.
That would be an interpretational assumption.  No, it doesn't assume that.  The convention is simply established by definition.  That's what a convention is.

Quote from: Halc
It's entirely testable.
Put yourself in Alice's shoes. Send the light signal to the clock at A and B (the points marked on the floor of your spaceship). Now, what is the empirical evidence that allows you to verify that Clock A located at point A (on your spaceship) is synced with Clock B located at point B (on your spaceship)?

Bear in mind that subtracting the values on the clocks and getting the same figures also verifies that the clocks, at those locations, are not synced.[/quote]Wrong.  Subtracting the values and getting identical figures demonstrates that the clocks at those locations are in sync, by the established convention.  Your counter examples use a different convention, but no claims about those other conventions have been made.

Quote
How does Alice observe that the physical photons make physical contact with the physical clocks located at the points A and B on her physical spaceship at the moment that coincides with the reading d/c on clock C0?
By using the method described by Einstein.  Are you suggesting I'm referring to different events than the ones where these physical occurrences take place?
Or are you suggesting that no such event exists and the light was intercepted or something?  I am admittedly assume that the latter is not occurring, but there are interpretations that suggest exactly that.  The events you describe represent counterfactuals, which, under certain interpretations, do not exist until measured at a later time.  Einstein's comment about the moon not existing if not observed was along the lines of denial of the principle of counterfactual definiteness.  Since I'm avoiding metaphysical assumptions, I cannot assume that one.
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #98 on: 10/07/2019 17:27:49 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
Poincare derived RoS before anybody else, but their interpretation uses a different convention to define simultaneity.  Einstein used an empirical convention.  Lorentz-Poincare does not.
Quote
In a contribution for a volume celebrating the 25th anniversary of Lorentz‘s doctorate, Poincaré explained his point by means of an illustration that strikingly resembles Einstein‘s method for the synchronization of clocks. He showed that if two observers at rest with respect to each other, but in motion with respect to the ether, try to synchronize their clocks by means of light pulses, the result is that their synchronized clocks are late with respect to the real time.
His convention to define simultaneity is, in effect, the same as Einstein's. Indeed, it is indiscgernible from Einstein's treatment of cco-ordinate systems.

Imagine Poincare starting with the absolute reference frame, then adding one relatively moving inertial frame. Now stop. You've got something that is indiscernible from Einstein's treatment of co-ordinate systems.

Quote
Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their watches by optics signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they take care to cross them. When the station B perceives the signal from the station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that the station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that the station B perceives it when its clock
marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it the station B sends in turn a signal when its clock marks 0; then the station A should perceive it when its
clock marks t. The time pieces are then adjusted. And in fact, they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on one condition, namely, that the two stations are fixed
Change station A and Station B for Clock at A and Clock at B and you've effectively got Einsein's sync convention. This is in Alice's "stationary system".

Quote
In the contrary case the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, while the station B flies away before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that manner do not mark, therefore, the true time; they mark what one may call the local time, so that one of them goes slow on the other. It matters little, since we have no means of perceiving it.
This is what Alice see's from the stationary system.

The Einsteinian interpretion is indiscernible from a scenario where both observers are treated as being at absolute rest or in the "stationary system".

Now, imagine that neither Alice nor Bob is in the absolute rest frame, both are moving relative to it. What do you think will be the case there?

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
I mean the entire theory, not one little part of it.  The theory only uses empirical premises.  No assumptions.
OK, well then you aren't discussing RoS bcos RoS is part of one interpretation and not part of the others, so it by way of logical necessity, cannot be derived from the "raw" mathematics.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
Quote
If both are referred to as SR theory, then SR theory cannot imply relativity of simultaneity because simultaneity is absolute in the absolutist interpretation.
Again, it uses a non-empirical convention to conclude that.
You use the term "non-empirical" as though it means something other than "assumption".

Are you now saying that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured? You sounded pretty optimistic earlier that it could (and would therefore be a non-"non-empirical" convention i.e. an empirical convention).

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
It deduces RoS using the empirical convention to define simultaneity.
Is it an empirical convention or a non-empirical convention? Either way, you are now in the domain of interpretation.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
  It doesn't imply it.  One is free to choose a different convention, but the convention is not a physical or metaphysical assumption of any sort.  Some interpretations use a different convention, but those are usually not empirical conventions, but rather based on a non-empirical assumption.  That different kind of simultaneity may or may not be relative, but being based on an assumed premise, that kind of simultaneity becomes assumed and not testable.
You seem to be a bit all over the place here. Is RoS derived from the "raw" mathematics or is it derived using the convention of one of the interpretations and therefore not part of the "raw" theory? I'll give you a hint, it's the latter.

Also, with regard to the convention being an assumption (of any kind).
Quote
standard formulations of the Special Theory of Relativity involve an assumption that is not even in principle testable if the rest of the theory is true: the status of the One-Way Light Principle will be that of a gratuitous metaphysical assumption.

Also, you use a term there, that I'm not familiar with, "non-empirical assumption". Perhaps if you tell me what the opposite of that would be, then I might better understand it.

Also, are you suggesting that the Einstein convention is not based on an assumed premise?

Get some sleep! You're losing it.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
Not talking about Einstein's interpretation because I don't have a list of his additional premises, so I'm going with just his theory sans additional premises.
Then you're arguing a strawman again, bcoss RoS is an interpretational artefact based on an "assumed premise", a "metaphysical assumption". It's not derived from the "raw" mathematics bcos if it were, it would form part of all interpretations and not just one!


Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
No it isn't.  It is a consequence of the theory upon which the interpretation is based.  An empirical consequence of an interpretation would be an additional prediction not made by the underlying theory.  If one were to exist, the 'interpretation' would cease to be an interpretation by definition.
Perhaps that is why people refer to them as Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and Lorentz-Poincare theory. Bcos, in case you hadn't noticed, they do make some pretty different predictions, it just appears as though they are not testable.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
A mark on the floor does not designate a location since no definition of the floor being stationary has been established.  A coordinate system is required to do that, and 'Clock A' makes no reference at all to that essential coordinate system.  Thus no empirical conclusion can be drawn about Clock A, but one can be made about 'Clock at A'.
There's that word "stationary" again. Relative to what, would you like to say the physical floor of the spaceship is "stationary"?

Step back into the "physical-world" for a second. You're onboard Alice's ship and she calls out, "Where are you Halc?" and you answer "I'm at the point marked A on the floor". Alice now knows your location. You can also have a clock at that location where she can send a light signal to.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 14:56:19
1) Any experiment (twins, H-K) anything at all, can be done and analyzed in any frame.  It doesn't change the result.  2) Mohammad need not stop at the mountain any more than the mountain need stop at Mohammed.
Yep, can be done in any frame, but it must be done in the same frame. Specifying which reference frame doesn't need to undergo acceleration/deceleration privileges it. Any frame can be chosen, but just you try and accelerate the Earth all the way to another where the other "twin" is. That any frame can be chosen shows that it isn't all that privileged.

If you don't like my usage of the term, suggest another one. "A rose by any other name"!
Logged
 

Offline the_roosh (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 67
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The Atemporal Universe - Resolving the Probem of Time
« Reply #99 on: 10/07/2019 17:42:17 »
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 16:40:17
Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 16:40:17
The convention depends on the isotropic one-way speed of light reltive to all co-ordinate systems. That is only part off the SR interpretation.
That would be an interpretational assumption.  No, it doesn't assume that.  The convention is simply established by definition.  That's what a convention is.
Rotate the system until you find the direction in which the one-way speed of light is not constant. There you go, implied isotropy demonstrated.

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 16:40:17
Wrong.  Subtracting the values and getting identical figures demonstrates that the clocks at those locations are in sync, by the established convention.  Your counter examples use a different convention, but no claims about those other conventions have been made.
Ooops, youre back to assuming that Alice is an barbie SR girl. She's not. She's knows that there are two possible interpretations of the subtracted values yielding identical figures, one implying the clocks are synced, one implying they aren't.

Being capable of basic logical reasoning she can conclude that the identical figures does not verify that the clocks are synced, in her frame. If she wants to conclude the clocks are synced in her frame, she doesn't derive this from observation, she assumes it!

Quote from: Halc on 10/07/2019 16:40:17
By using the method described by Einstein.  Are you suggesting I'm referring to different events than the ones where these physical occurrences take place?
Or are you suggesting that no such event exists and the light was intercepted or something?  I am admittedly assume that the latter is not occurring, but there are interpretations that suggest exactly that.  The events you describe represent counterfactuals, which, under certain interpretations, do not exist until measured at a later time.  Einstein's comment about the moon not existing if not observed was along the lines of denial of the principle of counterfactual definiteness.  Since I'm avoiding metaphysical assumptions, I cannot assume that one.
You're here, the clocks are over there. You send a light signal from here to there. How can you determine empirically, when the light signals arrive "over there"? How can you determine that the arrival of the light signals to the clocks "over there" coincide with the reading [d/c] on your clock C0?

Are you saying that the clocks and light signals "over there" are not over there bcos you can't see them? Bcos that is what your analogy implies. If the moon is stil there when you look away, then so too are the clocks and the light signals. How do you determine, empirically when they arrive at each clock?

Again, hint: you can't - you can only assume it!
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: relativity  / general relativity  / special relativity  / quantum mechanics  / gravity 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.129 seconds with 76 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.