|Whether or not there exists a universal now, will be the foundation for argumentation of this paper. The disagreement between the concepts of Einstein's relativity and that of Newton's determinism can be seen in this question... Is there a universal present? |
Einstein stated that, "simultaneity is relative. There is no universal present moment at every point of space. Events occurring at spatial separations which cannot be connected by a light signal cannot be assigned a particular chronological order which is the same for all observers in all states of motion. So one of the characteristics of the mental 'now' - that all people everywhere are experiencing the same now - is an unjustified extrapolation. There is no universal now, but only a personal one - a 'here and now'."|
|Is Einstein saying that if they are connected by a light signal - then can there be simultaneous nows at both locations?|
"events occurring at spatial separations"- under what conditions do events not take place at a spatial separation... Why is this qualifier part of the postulate? Events, signifying two or more, must always not be the same event and therefore must always be at two different locations and have a resultant spatial separation.
Whether or not these events can be connected by a light signal has nothing to do with the inability to assign a particular chronological order which is the same for all observers. Again, whether or not these observers are in various states of motion or not, has nothing to do with the inability to determine a particular chronological order which is the same for all observers. When no distinction is made to differentiate the light 'horizon' generated from an event and the actual event itself, then no singular chronological order can be assigned to events which is the same order for all observers.
Whether or not location can be connected by a light signal has nothing to do with their simultaneity. It occurs independent of our ability or lack of ability to properly monitor it. Things happen all the time. The universe is in constant motion.
Whether or not our definition of time includes its measurement is fundamental in our conceptualization of it. In order to measure time, we have found that the speed of light due to its consistently, is connected conceptually with time. We should not make the intellectual error of equating the two. Time is not light traveling at light speed.
Changes in light speed due to observation or due to actual physical speed changes do not change time. It does not take the light signal requirement between locations in order for them to occur at the exact same universal moment. They occur at a distance from one another at the same universal moment. After that precise moment comes the next chronological moment - the universal present that is shared by all of the universe. It all moves forward together constantly being in the present.
The fact that light waves from an event continue on into the future is a point that needs some clarification. The event is the event and not the light horizon from the event. The light horizon in effect is its own and distinct "event". Events themselves occur in absolute sequence. From an external view of the universe - watch as things happens at different places at the same time. Not just one location is involved at a given interval.
Is he implying that events occurring at spatial separations which can be connected by a light signal can be assigned a particular chronological order which is the same for all observers in all states of motion? When no distinction is made to differentiate the light horizon generated from an event and the actual event itself, then no particular chronological order can be assigned to events which is the same order for all observers.
The conclusion that there is no universal present, deduced from the ideas concerning the connection of a light signal to verify some measurement process, is an area that needs to be questioned. Once one buys the premise that there is no universal present, then I have no objections to the limited concepts of relativity. However, I do question this premise, and the conclusions widely accepted about Einstein's relativity. Once you as a scientist cross over this line, then all of the related areas of space and light follow in the footprints of this line of reasoning.
Einstein's belief in no universal present has left his logic with paradoxes. - the twin paradox - and situations that defy common sense...
If two synchronized atomic clocks are left side by side, they will differ by only a fraction of a second after billions of years. We can check how gravity slows these clocks by putting one of these atomic clocks into an orbital trajectory high above the earth where gravity is weaker and then returning it to the earth and comparing its elapsed time against a clock on earth where the gravity is relatively stronger. The observed time difference between the two clocks agrees with general relativity. In another version of this experiment, one atomic clock is taken from the national bureau of standards in Washington D.C., Near sea level and moved to Denver Colorado. The clock rates differ because of the difference in the gravitational force between the two
Locations, and these again accord with general relativity. By a tiny amount, people in Denver actually age more rapidly that those in Washington D.C.|
Einstein showed that a moving clock marked time more slowly than one at rest. It seems as if the relativity of time poses a paradox - for how can both the passenger on the train and the person on the platform both see each other's watches slow down? By using Einstein's general theory of relativity, which applies to non uniform motions like that of the train, one can demonstrate that the twin on the train has actually aged less.
With a different comprehension of "events" and of time and its possible mathematical variations, an entirely different version of reality is possible. |
* but what is now? There is no such thing in physics; it is not even clear that 'now' can ever be described, let alone explained, in the terms of physics.
"a definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. Length and time are two of the indefinable of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinable. The third may with equal justification, be taken to be mass or force... The rule of measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition".
I believe that we all already know what it means when I use the term the universal present. We each understand this concept and inherently feel this to be the truth, but have been told by Einstein's relativity that there is no universal now.
While at my location, I am now experiencing my present. I am aware that I am not the only thing in the universe. I am aware that there exists things in the universe things that are not me. I am aware that in order for these other things to exist that they too must have a present now for them at some point in time. While my particular now is for me, there must indeed be a now for all the other places that exist. The question then is - is it the same now or different now? Einstein suggests that there is a different now. What else then is occurring during the now at his selected locality? What else then exists in his universe when he experiences his unique now? It would seem that the universe does not share his present now and is experiencing some different now. I question his logic.
It is this vision of reality that I shall attempt to share. Using this concept of a personal here and now, starting from the instant that you finish this sentence, let an interval of one hour elapse of your personal here and now. While you are experiencing your now during that one hour interval, what else has also experienced that one hour interval? I would suggest that the rest of the universe has moved and therefore experienced its own now.
In fact, that its own now must have occurred during the last one hour. This points to a simultaneous occurrence. Einstein in his personal here and now implies that nowhere else is also experiencing the universal present. This restriction of verification of simultaneity by means of measurements of light signals is fundamentally unnecessary. He further complicates the issues of time and simultaneity by ignoring the differences between an "event" and "the light horizon generated by the event".