Before getting in earnest into the subject of this page I want to talk with you about a couple of issues which I deem will be of overall help in what we've been discussing thus far. Remember that a few pages back I talked about how one particular paradox of Zeno should have been resolved in the simplest possible way by using nothing more than adequate reasoning. Remember how I stressed out the imperative importance of clarity and precision in the description and understanding of any problem, especially when the spoken language is used. Remember also how I specifically emphasised that even though mathematics is a more precise language than the spoken one, in the end the spoken language carries more weight in solving a problem simply because our brains think primarily in spoken language, even when using mathematics as principal investigative tool. (Now I'm not so sure if I said all this then, but I hope I did...)
But why am I repeating all this now? For two reasons. First, because I don't think that the subject of motion has been adequately presented in the conventional physics, and second, because I believe that it was due to a similar inadequacy that SR has managed to unwarrantably sway so many able minds on its side.
In dealing with motion physicists have divided it a long time ago into two major classes. These two major classes of motion are generally called (nowadays) uniform, and non-uniform. The first class is concerned with the motion at a constant velocity in a straight line, while the second class is formed by all other kinds of motion (i.e. motions at variable speed, or in a non-straight line, or both). The reason for this division was reasonable enough, since in the case of uniform motion an observer appeared to be totally oblivious to being in motion, while in the other case the observer would definitely be rather acutely aware of being in a state of movement. Over the years physicists have discussed, debated, and wondered a great deal about these two kinds of motion, without ever being able to achieve a definite understanding of the nature of motion, or at least come to a genuine consensus on the matter. Why? For more than one reason, of course. To my mind, though, there has always been one main factor responsible for this long-standing situation. That factor has been the mainstream preponderance to treat the two types of motion as separate phenomena. I believe that motion is motion. I believe that in spite of the obvious differences between the uniform and non-uniform motions fundamentally they are of the same nature. As far as I'm concerned this means that whatever laws or factors create the conspicuous effects in the objects travelling non-uniformly are also responsible for the equally conspicuous non-effects in the objects travelling uniformly. Some may argue that in fact physicists have discussed this rather expected aspect of motion, but my personal view is that whatever discussions have been conducted on this subject in the last four or five centuries have largely been peripheral to the whole topic. I do not intend to engage in a thorough debate about this, though. I've simply mentioned this aspect of the motion phenomenon as an introduction to what I'll discuss on the subject a little later on this page.
Now, about my assertion about the inadequacy of the conventional presentation of SR I'd like to remind you about another thing I wrote in one of my earlier pages--that I could defend the theory better than any conventional relativist. The time has come to show you that what I said then was not just some hollow declaration. Firstly, though, I ought to say a few more words about that, mainly because I'd like to prevent from the outset any possible misunderstandings. For instance, by saying that I could defend SR better than any conventional relativist I have of course implied that no physicist (Einstein included) has hitherto managed to see what physics lay beyond the theory's mathematical façade. Also, by saying that I could "defend", I of course meant that I could build a case for SR in the same manner in which a lawyer for the defence would. But, more importantly, by making that declaration, in the context of everything else I had said about SR, I implied that I quite conscious about the reasons for which the theory has proved to be so seductive for most physicists. Finally, by making that declaration I revealed--as far as I'm concerned--that Einstein had been close (very, very close, in fact) to the truth with his SR (although commensurately far, in the end).
The ultimate goal of physics is the discovery of the factors responsible for the existence and evolution of the material realm in order to enable us to develop an objective view of reality. In that quest we have realised that we ought to observe and employ specific guidelines, restrictions, conditions, and caveats, to stand any chance of success. Now, the physical realm is fundamentally made out of objects which move in space and exist in time. In order to draw an objective map of reality, then, we must establish where every object in the Universe is at every point in time. But how could we do that, when the following facts must be taken into consideration: all objects in the Universe are in motion; the Universe has no definite boundaries; space has no apparent features; time has no palpable materiality. To illustrate how difficult such a task is think (veery carefully, but not too pedantically) about this little story. The inhabitants of an island could not agree about how far the mainland was from their home. Some said three days, others claimed that only one, while a fisherman who had sailed there and back most recently swore that the mainland was only nine hours away. Having had to listen to these arguments for a long time the exasperated king offered a great reward to the first person able to prove who was right. One day a man called Albert came to the royal court and said "They're all right, Your Majesty", after which he showed the king the proof and duly collected the reward.
SR deals exclusively with uniform motion. SR is a theory constructed on the foundations of the Galilean principle of relativity. SR, therefore, asserts that no observer in an inertial frame will ever be able to determine whether he is in motion or at rest--not even by looking outside. Of course, this further means that no observer in uniform motion will ever be able to determine at what speed he is travelling. In view of these apparent facts the hope of being able to draw an objective map of reality looks utterly delusional. But how did Einstein then manage to convince the world that he had a solution to such a seemingly hopeless situation? That is the question.
SR is credited with having resolved a most impressive list of problems in physics, and in the course of the last one hundred and a bit years physicists have not stopped talking and marvelling about that. One of the many problems resolved by SR was, according to the conventional relativists, that most irksome result of the Michelson-Morley experiment from 1887. It is well known that Einstein, however, did never really discuss that most startling experiment. Indeed he said that he wasn't even sure if he'd been aware about it before the publication of SR, and that it certainly played no part in the development of his theory. Whatever the truth may have been, in the end Einstein was credited with resolving the troublesome M-M experiment, even though he did it by following the track left by the earlier footprints of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Now, as far as I'm concerned, by following the conventional wisdom Einstein had not only insured that he would be at least listened to--he also increased significantly his chances of becoming famous. Nevertheless, by doing that he (wittingly or unwittingly) exposed himself to hazards that one day could tarnish his current status and aura. More importantly, though, by following the prevalent wisdom he deprived himself of a great opportunity to unify physics into a coherent and comprehensive body of knowledge. Let me now show you why I believe this.
The M-M experiment was conducted, and 'resolved', via a mathematical analysis I presented in full on this page. According to that analysis Michelson's interferometer should register a discrepancy in the arrival of the two beams of light at the point of observation. In effect, that time discrepancy ought to exist because the distances that the two beams had to travel were not equal. Mathematically, the results obtained were the ones below:
From these results in the end the conventional analysis concluded that the beam of light that had to travel in a direction parallel to the earth's motion should arrive a little later than the beam sent out perpendicularly. How much later it isn't important. What is truly important is this final conclusion:
It was due to this anticipated inequality that Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment, only to eventually be left with no other choice but to reveal--to everyone's consternation--that in effect it took light virtually the same amount of time to complete both journeys. Of course, this result was not only unexpected; it was also deeply troubling and, for obvious reasons, conflicting. So conflicting, in fact, that some drastic measure had to be taken to appease the known physics, and eventually that unpleasant situation was resolved by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald idea that objects in uniform motion undergo a transformational contraction along their axis of movement. This rather desperate measure appeared to have restored an atmosphere of peace in the world of physics. But that peace was short lived. As the history goes, in 1905 Einstein published his "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" paper, which eventually became his first theory of relativity, and which marked the beginning of an intellectual war (albeit, unnoticed or unacknowledged by most) that continues to this day.
Now, in the paper that later became SR Einstein arrived at the same conclusion as Fitzgerald and Lorentz before him--namely, that objects in uniform motion suffer a contraction along their axis of travel. Unlike his predecessors, though, he made no reference at all to the M-M experiment and, naturally, used a completely different analytical reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. In spite of these facts, however, SR is credited in the end with resolving the null result of the M-M experiment.But, and here lies the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned, what happens if we apply the postulates of SR to the mathematical analysis used in the M-M experiment? Has anyone done that? I don't know. But if anyone did, I'd love to know how the conventional relativists have managed to avoid, or resolve, the following. If we accept that the two postulates of SR are correct, and if we implement them in the mathematical reasoning behind the M-M experiment, then: in the case where the beam of light travels perpendicularly to the mirror and back nothing changes and the result remains the same; in the parallel case, however, the situation changes dramatically. That's because the total time of the parallel journey in the pre-relativistic analysis, which was mathematically arrived at thus
has to be replaced with the relativistic analysis, which (due to SR's postulates) will take the form below
And when this is done, two quite extraordinary things happen. First, the total time of the parallel journey in the M-M experiment is now shorter than the total time taken by the light to complete the perpendicular journey! That's, of course, because
As for the second, lo and behold, the relativistic result of the parallel case 2d / c is now perfectly equal to the result derived by the common sense! (See this page for a detailed analysis of the common sense result, and pay special attention to how the common sense 2d / c was arrived at).
The proposal that objects in uniform motion extend (or expand, perhaps--I've never been able to decide which is a better term), rather than contract, is so seamlessly integrated into common sense that even little kids understand why things ought to be that way. After all they are quite instinctively aware of many real-life examples of objects that appear longer than they really are, when they're moving fast enough. A point of light, for instance, can easily be made to look like a line of light, and even toddlers do not seem to be surprised by that. Or who cannot understand, to use another example, the relative truism of this piece of wit I heard from my son: "Dad, who is to say that the earth is not flat and thin, like a coin, but that it's rotating so fast that to us it looks like a sphere!" Ah, the power of common sense! Alas, in the last century the conventional physicists have tried hard to convince the world that the Universe and the common sense have nothing in common, and--alas, alas--many have been convinced. I wonder, though, how a conventional relativist may succeed in trying to convince little kids that objects look shorter, rather than longer, when they're in fast motion.
It is rather easy to prove that objects in uniform motion extend in their direction of travel, not contract. To do that I will use a a simple and straightforward thought experiment which, nevertheless, can be also conducted in reality with relative ease. Consider two identical laboratories, one at rest and the other moving uniformly relative to it, designed to be measured (lengthwise) with beams of lights of the purest monochromatic wavelength. (See animation below.)
The laboratories are identical but independent frames of reference, and both are governed by the expanded principle of relativity of Einstein. This means that the two axioms of SR are at work in both frames, which is evidenced by the fact that in both frames the beams of light are emitted at the same time (and from the same relative points), and arrive at the same time (and to the same relative points). Now this ultimately means that in both frames the speed of light is the same, and that both observers' measurements are the same. (At this point some may find themselves lured by deceiving thoughts onto the wrong path. Careful you're not one of them!)
But the truth is that the observers' conclusions remain the same only for as long as they do not look at each other's laboratory, for if they do things will appear differently to each of them. In effect, to the observer at rest the laboratory in motion (and everything inside it) will appear to be longer than his, while to the observer in motion the laboratory at rest (and everything inside it) will seem to be shorter in length. Now, these two different perspectives are perfectly expected, and accommodated, by the common sense and common experience, and they're also logically and physically consistent. In SR, however, there is only one perspective for all observers, according to which all objects in motion appear shorter (than they normally are) to the observers at rest, with the objects at rest also appearing shorter (than they normally are) to those observers who are in motion! The time will nonetheless have to come when physics will once again be governed by common sense and logic. Alas, physicists have by and large no understanding of the real connotation of what we call "common sense". Hell bent on convincing the world that "common sense" has nothing in common with the Universe, they have bastardised the meaning of that expression to such a degree that many associate "common sense" with the beliefs of simpletons. How many times haven't I heard things like "common sense tell us that the sun revolves around the earth"! How hard is it to see that "the common sense" of yesterday is not the common sense of today? How difficult is to realise that common sense evolves, with us?
Undoubtedly, it is reassuring when things make (common) sense, even in physics. But when things make (common) sense through the use of known physical laws and principles... well, that is not merely reassuring; that is scientific nirvana. And, fortunately, my extension-expansion proposal does indeed meet that highly desirable criterion.
SR is fundamentally a theory of perspectives. In effect, SR asserts that since no object in the Universe is at rest the perspective of any given observer (what any given observer sees) is determined by everything's and everyone's state of motion.(Nonetheless, to this general assertion SR has added a rather troublesome codicil--namely that any given observer can rightfully consider his own referential frame as being at rest.) Now, according to SR, to an observer at rest an object in uniform motion will appear to be contracted (to have shrunk) along its axis of travel. This, however, is only a declaration--for SR does not tell the observer how he might be able to see, register, or record that decreed contraction! Objects in motion contract along their travelling axis, it seems, in order to enable SR to derive the Lorentz transformations, which resolved that much irritating result of the M-M experiment. Do you get my drift? If not, it will become clear in a moment.
According to my mind, on the other hand, objects in uniform motion extend (or expand) along their travelling axis, and they do this also in order to explain the M-M experiment. However, the extension-expansion effect I propose has not been solely designed to resolve a troublesome experiment. Its validity in fact has been derived from the theoretical and empirical foundations of quantum physics and it extends into the experimental observations of relativity. What do I mean by that? Simply the following. To any given observer an object in uniform motion will appear to extend along its axis of travel because there is no zero time interval in the Universe! Quantum physics, in fact, has taught us that every thing in the Universe is grainy--including space and time. Thus we have learnt that you cannot divide anything indefinitely. Nothing is continuous, everything is discrete. That's why to an observer at rest, even if he had the fastest recording device in the Universe (a camera, say, with a shutter speed of Planckian values), an object in uniform motion will still appear to extend-expand in the direction of its travel.
A brief intermezzo
I remember reading many years ago about a discussion between Bohr and Heisenberg about his newly published principle of uncertainty. The two great men were at odds in regards to whether the uncertainty was a consequence of experimental limitation (Heisenberg's view) or if it was in fact a universal one (Bohr's stance). At the time I was inclined to side with Heisenberg (probably because I never liked Bohr's interpretation of what quantum mechanics is supposed to reveal about the Universe). These days, however, I can see the strength of Bohr's position on that issue. In fact today I believe that I can extend my own work toward a natural alliance with Heisenberg's principle and Bohr's universal limit of achievable certainty.
Of course, in response to what I said thus far one could argue that the extension-expansion effect I'm proposing appears to be merely apparent, rather than real, which means that my proposal cannot explain the null result of the M-M experiment. But such argument would be not only biased (after all neither Lorentz, nor Einstein, nor anybody else--for that matter--has done anything more than decreeing their contraction effect), it would also be hasty and premature. In fact, unlike Lorentz, or Einstein, or anybody else, I will provide a solid physical basis for my extensional proposal. Even more than that, I will employ the idea of my proposal to resolve other controversial problems in the conventional physics.
I mentioned at the beginning of this page that, to my mind, all motions are basically the same. What I meant was that in spite of the manifest differences between motions I have good reasons to believe that there is a common stratum that forms the basis of all of them. Take for example a non-uniform motion, like acceleration, and compare it with the rectilinear uniform motion. These two types of motion have long been considered different because of the different effects they impart on observers. Now, of course, from that point of view acceleration and uniform motion are certainly different. But, from a personal point of view, acceleration and uniform motion have one crucial thing in common. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, that crucial thing they have in common is much more important than their differences. Before getting to that common crucial thing, though, have a good look at the drawing below.
On the left I have drawn a picture of an object (which is a perfectly symmetrical circle when it is ideally at rest) which is accelerating in the direction of the arrow under the influence of an unseen gravitational point. On the right there is a picture of the same object, travelling this time uniformly. The crucial thing that both non-uniform and uniform motions have in common, according to my understanding, is that regardless in what particular state of motion an object is it will undergo a spatial transformation from its original shape at ideal rest. In the case of an object accelerating, for instance, like in the figure above left, the transformation the object will be subjected to will be asymmetric and non-uniform, and because of that an observation conducted in those conditions will register and reflect all the effects of that particular transformation. In the case of an object moving uniformly (like in the figure above right), on the other hand, the transformation the object will be subject to will be symmetric and uniform--and so will be the observation conducted under those conditions. That this is a valid picture of motion as a whole is rather easy to deduce--when you consider how objects respond to changes from one type of motion to another. The most important thing to extract from a thorough and careful analysis of what I briefly discussed here is that whatever motion an object is subject to it will always suffer a spatial transformation. As for whether my extension-expansion proposal is apparent or real, have another look at the drawing above and then think about what we've been talking lately on this page.
Oh, Time... May It forever stay unidirectional!
As a whole physicists are a very conservative lot. In the world of physics the established theories are fiercely defended and any new theory is met with a great deal of suspicion and scepticism. But, of course, to the best of our knowledge this is the right approach in all scientific endeavours, and indeed most of us do not even need philosophical arguments to understand why things should better be so. The history of SR, however, is quite exceptional in science. In spite of starting out with a great handicap (as the creation of a complete unknown, with unfinished education and no credentials) SR encountered little, if any, resistance in its meteoric rise to the very top of the established theories. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that SR brought with it a highly dubious and controversial view of reality, which managed to alienate quite a few physicists over the years, it has never been treated with suspicion by the establishment. The only part of that conservative scientific approach that physicists have used (if not abused) in regards to SR is the one concerned with the mentioned defence of the established theories. They have done that for 106 years now, and in all this time they've shown no sign at all that anything is ever likely to change on their part. Leaving aside most other considerations, then, the ultimate question must certainly be the following: Why has there been so much faith in SR? And to that question the only scientifically justifiable answer is the one that relativists have given us all along: Because all the experimental evidence we have gathered confirms what the theory is saying. But..
"God is subtle, not malicious". Of all the Einsteinian insights that history has preserved, to my mind this is the most beautiful and the most valuable--even though the English "malicious" is rather limited in 'spectral' meaning. To really understand the beauty and the value of Einstein's insight one should expand the English connotation of malicious to match, in a symmetrically opposed fashion, the word subtle. In effect one should instinctively get a feeling that what Einstein meant was that God is not capricious, erratic, moody, arbitrary, vagarious, whimsical, shifty, perverse... It is within this larger context that Einstein's insight reveals its beauty and value, and physicists should have been specially able to appreciate them. Alas the god of relativists is not even remotely subtle. It is just odiously malicious. In fact the god of relativists is not just odiously malicious, in its fullest spectrum of meanings: It is also monumentally pompous, vain, and stupid--much like that emperor in his invisible garb.
When Einstein put together his SR, to some extent he must have realised the risks he was exposing himself to, considering the enormous leap of faith (from the absolutism of the Newtonian space and time to the relativistic spacetime) that his theory demanded. I said "to some extent" because I do not believe that prior to the publication of his paper he could have been aware of all the eventual implications and developments SR was to generate over the years. Those risks, however, although real, were nevertheless well calculated--for the foundations onto which his theory was erected had already been laid down by others and, by and large, had been approved by the establishment. Moreover, the predictions of his theory were either expected (by virtue of some well-understood physics), or beyond the foreseeable technological capabilities of humanity for a very long time. Consider, as a solitary example, SR's prediction that the passage of time should run at a lower pace for a clock in motion. It is rather easy to see why a clock that uses light as its time-measuring yardstick should run slower when in motion than when at rest. The prospect of an experiment with atomic clocks, then, like the one conducted by Hafele and Keating in 1971, could not have caused Einstein to lose any sleep. As for the idea that time itself runs slower in moving inertial frames, the prospect of truly testing that prediction was comfortably laying well beyond the foreseeable horizon. Purely on such bases, therefore, those risks were worth taking (especially if they were also to be weighted against the much greater benefits that would befit the author), and a young and sharp thinker as Einstein was could certainly do no less than pushing with all his might the full relativistic gamut into the stern faces of those in authority. And the rest is history. In the years following that of 1905 SR was extensively and comprehensively tested, we have since been reminded time and again, without once the theory being found to falter. Sure, there have been contentious issues with the Einsteinian view of reality from its very beginning to this day, relativists concede with indifferent candour, but those so-called issues, they argue, have been borne out of either ignorance, or cerebral mediocrity. For those who have understood the theory (and for those with superior intellects, presumably) Albert Einstein has been nothing less than a prophet. (Of the scientific kind, of course.)
There are not many topics in the relativistic story that can be easily understood by the majority, but the conventional explanation about why time runs slower in a moving frame of reference is definitely one of those. And what better proof of that fact could there exist beside what has become common knowledge these days--namely, that in order to understand the time-dilation relativistic effect a very simple diagram and a brief explanatory note shall suffice for most people. The diagram in question is basically identical to the one I have drawn below on the right. As for the diagram on the left--that, you have seen on an earlier page.
I have never seen discussed anywhere if a travelling clock, oriented as in the drawing above [left], could run slower than a stationary one... Nonetheless, running slower it must, for SR is categorical: All clocks are affected by motion, and all in the manner asserted. A clock in motion with the orientation above, however, could not run slower than an identical stationary clock—it could only run faster ! (Since objects travelling uniformly contract in the direction of their motion, the distance travelled by the beam of light between the two mirrors becomes shorter than that covered by the light in the stationary clock—which ultimately results in a clock in motion that runs faster than its counterpart at rest). As I said, I have never seen this issue discussed anywhere, although I'd love to hear how a conventional relativist could tackle this problem.
Back when I wrote the paragraph above, which comes from the page I mentioned a moment ago, I did not plan to say any more on that issue than I did there. But I've changed my mind, for two good reasons.
I haven't had the privilege (thus far, at least) to hear how a conventional relativist would tackle "this problem". Not that it matters, really--for I know as well as any of them that there is only one way in which "this problem" can be, conventionally, resolved. And that only way is--surprise, surprise--provided by the "an object in motion is also at rest" (and, by extension, to the "an object contracting is equally not contracting") conventional proviso. Indeed this is the only way in which the conventional relativists can somewhat explain-away the paradoxes generated by the "problem" illustrated above. Now, of course, our conventional relativists are not in the least troubled by this 'precisely-ambivalent' answer (for, after all, they have managed to defend SR against most "problems" by appealing to nothing else but the magic of that proviso).
Having understood all things involved, then, how could anyone not see the much bigger problem that the "problem" creates?
From a personal perspective the most fascinating thing about SR is its deeply rooted connection with the M-M experiment, especially since Einstein consistently shied away from discussing it with any degree of conviction or credibility. What I find fascinating about that is not Einstein's denial that he'd either been aware of the experiment, or that it had played any role in the development of his theory. No, what I find fascinating is the regularity with which the M-M experiment crops up (either in full view for all to see, or in a dim view for a handful) in every issue related to the conventional relativistic understanding. In my mind I see the M-M experiment as the only ghost relativists should fear. (In fact my mind tells me that the M-M experiment will prove to be SR's nemesis, in the end.) Take for instance the subject we're discussing at the moment. You surely have realised by now that a combined set-up of clocks as illustrated in the two diagrams above forms a perfect interferometer, just like the one used in the M-M experiment. And if you've realised that, then you should see quite clearly now why I have said what I have so far. Moreover, you should also begin to see (even if dimly) how the conventional analysis behind the M-M experiment may have been deficient, after all, for when it is adopted and implemented into SR's framework (as indeed Einstein, whether wittingly or unwittingly, did), it unavoidably leads to paradoxes--of which many are known and a few are not.
The big problem I'm talking about is very simple. If objects in uniform motion contract, as SR--and the M-M experiment--demand, then a clock in motion should run faster than a stationary one. Faced with this problem the conventional relativist has no choice but to invoke the "an object in motion is also at rest" proviso. This is a good invocation, with immediate results. One immediate benefit is of course the return to the slower pace of time in moving inertial frames. But the conventional invocation has an additional benefit too. That additional benefit consists in allowing SR to once again be credited with resolving the troublesome M-M experiment. That is the magic of the "an object in motion is also at rest" proviso! You know what I mean? The thing is that whether in motion or at rest an interferometer will still give null results to any "M-M like" experiment, and the magic act is that, thanks to that proviso, SR can be credited with resolving not only the result of the M-M experiment, but also of proving that an inertial frame of reference is indistinguishable from a stationary one. Now if this is not a magic act, I don't know what it is.
There is only one problem with it, though: it stinks. Why does it stink? Firstly, because through that act relativists tell us, literally, that an object in motion is--at the same time--at rest too! And secondly, for the same reason for which we have come to realise that there is only one theory worse than a bad theory--and that's a theory that can be equally used to explain (or predict) two completely different things.
I wish I could put down in words how giddy I get when I listen to relativists' understanding of time. Take as a concrete example the, to my mind, mystifying conventional lamentation about the apparently lawless arrow of time.
Maxwell's theory predicts that radio waves travel through empty space at the speed of light. What Maxwell's equations do not tell us, however, is whether these waves arrive before or after they are transmitted. They are indifferent to the distinction between past and future. According to the equations, it is perfectly permissible for the radio waves to go backwards in time as well as forwards in time. (Paul Davies--About time)
Such a law would give a fundamental explanation to the observed arrow of time. The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What’s more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way but not the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction of time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing. Even though experience reveals over and over again that there is an arrow of how events unfold in time, this arrow seems not to be found in the fundamental laws of physics. (Brian Greene--The fabric of the Cosmos)
There is no doubt in my mind that to the common philosopher out there the statements of these physicists are at least as perplexing as the apparent lack of a fundamental law that would explain the arrow of time is for Brian Greene. I, for one, have never had any issues with the unidirectional axis of time. On the contrary, the universe of my understanding requires a unidirectional time. For the conventional physicist, however, the apparent discrepancy between Maxwell's equations and the physical reality of time is a big stumbling block.
Given a pattern of electromagnetic activity, such as that corresponding to radio waves from a transmitter spreading out through space, the time-reversed pattern (in this case, converging waves) is equally permitted by the laws of electromagnetism. In physics jargon forward-in-time waves are called "retarded" (as they arrive late) and backward-in-time waves are called "advanced" (as they arrive early). Because we don't seem to notice advanced radio waves, or advanced electromagnetic waves of any sort, the advanced solutions of Maxwell's equations are usually simply discarded as "unphysical". But what justification have we for doing that? Is there another law of physics, in addition to the laws of wave motion, that commands: "No advanced solutions in this universe!" If not, what else might lead nature to prefer retarded waves over advanced waves, given that both varieties apparently comply with her laws of electromagnetism?
Now, I am quite certain that the common philosopher I have in mind would easily find a sound justification for discarding the advanced solutions of Maxwell's equations, which would be based upon this simple line of reasoning: the existence of any electromagnetic wave indubitably depends (it is caused) by the existence of a source, whereas the existence of a source does not at all depend (it isn't caused) by the existence of any particular electromagnetic wave. The relationship between a transmitter and the radio waves it generates is, in space and in time (physically), uncompromisingly unidirectional--even if Maxwell's equations mathematically seem to suggest otherwise. Argue against this line of reasoning if you have a genetic predilection for idiocy.
But what about the law that would explain the unidirectional arrow of time and bring peace in physicists' mind? Does it exist? And if it does, what prevents the conventional physicist from seeing it? It's not for a lack of trying, surely, for even Einstein himself had taken a position on the issue.
In 1909 ...Einstein published a short note with Walther Ritz, a young but sickly physicist... Though sympathetic to the theory of relativity, Ritz thought Einstein did not fully understand the nature of electromagnetic radiation. He was convinced that there was an overlooked law of nature favouring retarded electromagnetic waves and suppressing the advanced variety. Ritz called this "the emission theory of light", because it distinguished between emission and its time reverse-absorbtion. He believed it was the explanation for the directionality in time that we observe in daily life. Einstein disagreed. He insisted that the laws of electromagnetism must be symmetrical with respect to time. The asymmetry of retarded waves came, he asserted, from statistical considerations. To see what Einstein meant by this, imagine a stone being thrown into a pond. It creates ripples that spread out from the point of impact and eventually die away in the shallows, lost among the waving reeds. These are retarded waves. A movie film of this sequence, run in reverse, would show advanced waves--ripples that appear around the edges of the pond and converge in an organized circular pattern onto a point. The latter scenario is not, strictly, impossible. It is conceivable, but highly unlikely, that the motion of the reeds would cooperatively and conspiratorially arrange themselves in such a way as to create just the right mix of little ripples to produce a precisely circular pattern of converging waves. The conspiracy involves many separate wave disturbances being choreographed to arrive in the middle of the pond at precisely the same time and in perfect step--i.e. with correlated phases. In reality we would expect the chance motion of reeds to be largely uncorrelated, and the phases of the wavelets to be random. Translating this into electromagnetic terms, we conclude that an advanced wave is not impossible, only extremely improbable.
Ah, statistics! Don't we love 'em? This mathematical magic wand of modern times, which has become (inarguably) the most powerful weapon in all walks of life, is certainly best waved by physicists. I'm fully confident of stating this because it was no other body but that of physicists who have managed to use this magic wand to its ultimate boundaries. If you do not believe me try to surpass their most powerful statistical conclusion, which says that basically even nothing has finite odds. Viewed in the context of this ultimate achievement, then, the story in the paragraph above is rather trivial. One thing still bothers me, nonetheless. If this troublesome arrow of time is so important, and since Einstein himself had such a strong view about its nature, why hasn't anyone tested his vision? Odds too high? I dispute that. Let's put a figure on that "...not impossible, only extremely improbable" remark. What figure would you like to come up with? You see, the fact is that I don't care what number you'll put down, for I can show you that we can design an experiment that will bring that number down to an easily manageable size. And what you're gonna do then? Wait to see if the advanced solutions to Maxwell's equations are part of the real Universe? I can give you the answer to that.
Einstein's statistical view is not unique or self-sufficient in scope. It is in fact very similar to the main contender for that very special law sought by the conventional physicists, which is the second law of thermodynamics.
Although the simple laws of mechanics--Newton's laws--are completely reversible as far as time is concerned, we know that the real world just isn't like that. Think of a stone dropped on the ground. When it hits the ground, the energy of its motion is converted into heat. But if we put an identical stone on the ground and warm it by the same amount, it doesn't jump into the air. Why not? In the case of the falling stone, an orderly form of motion (all the atoms and molecules falling in the same direction) is turned into a disordered form of motion (all the atoms and molecules jostling against one another energetically but randomly). This is in accordance with a law of nature that seems to require that disorder is always increasing, and disorder is identified, in this sense, with entropy. This law is the second law of thermodynamics, and states that natural processes always move toward an increase of disorder, or that entropy always increases. If you put disordered heat energy into a stone it cannot, in that case, use that energy to create an orderly movement of all the molecules in the stone so that they jump upward together.
Weak. Disappointingly weak. Argument. Interpretation. Everything. Physicists do not understand the second law of thermodynamics, in the first place. And that's why they cannot see the law that accounts for the unidirectional nature of time's arrow, in the second. Not because that law doesn't exist.
That physicists do not understand the second law is eloquently demonstrated by the "shuffling of a deck of cards for the first time" analogy, which has been invariably used by all of those who've taken upon themselves the task of teaching the masses the laws of thermodynamics. Alas, it appears that they have succeeded in that endeavour, for I, personally, have never seen, or heard, about any opposition to the conventional view on the topic. Now this is a terribly disconcerting fact, as far as I'm concerned. Indeed it troubles me a great deal that the conventional physicists of the modern times have managed to convince the world that the Universe is ultimately doomed to die in decadence and ingloriousness. It troubles me not because I nurture any particular idealistic or spiritual beliefs; it troubles me because they have arrived at that conclusion via a really dodgy line of reasoning. And that line of reasoning is perfectly embodied in their interpretation of the "shuffling of a deck of cards for the first time" analogy. To see what I mean let us remember how the conventional physicists have been using that analogy to convey to the world what the second law of thermodynamics apparently stipulates.
A freshly bought deck of cards is in a high state of order. This high state of order, however, is systematically diminished (in principle) with each subsequent shuffle. In effect the level of disorder, the entropy, is continuously increasing--says the conventional physicist--and, in this respect, a deck of cards is subject to the same fate as that that governs the Universe.
Thus have reasoned our conventional physicists, and thus they believe that the physical realm is unfolding. Their degenerative interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics has become so influential in the conventional perspective of reality that today's physicists are utterly incapable to see the evolutionary process of matter that unfolds along the same arrow as that of time. Why are they surprised, then, that they cannot see the law responsible for the unidirectional axis of time?
For the one who aspires to understand why time is irreversible, and what law is responsible for its axis of extension, the most important thing is to re-evaluate one's understanding of the second law. And let me assure one that there are no easier tasks than that, in physics. In fact this is such a simple task that a mere re-examination of the "shuffling of a deck of cards for the first time" analogy will thoroughly suffice to achieve that goal. Moreover, even the 're-examination' I mentioned should not require me to write more than two sentences, before one should fully understand what the second law of thermodynamics is telling us. So, then, here comes the first sentence: In the deck of cards analogy one should replace the conventional interpretation (which consists of, after all, a highly questionable "order-disorder" line of reasoning) with what would be one's own interpretation of what happens when the deck of cards is used for its designated purpose--like playing poker, for instance. And the second sentence: Keeping in mind what I said in the first sentence one should now substitute the rather too vague "order-disorder" understanding with a much more definite "simplicity-complexity" picture. After which one should begin to think about how in a game of poker the number of the complex 'systems' created during a game (the pairs, the straights, the full houses, the flushes, etc.) appear to not only defy the conventional view that the level of disorder always increases, but to also display a rather definite increase in complexity as the game progresses. And after that one should finally ponder on the following: if the relatively complex systems that occur in a game of poker can be created randomly, how much more complex systems can be created in the Universe--where qualitative and quantitative fields and forces are associated with every speck of matter, and where well-defined laws are (incorruptibly) conducting the universal affairs.
Although the conventional physicists have been forced to admit that a definitive explanation for the arrow of time is yet to be found, it is manifestly obvious that they continue to nurture a hidden belief that the second law of thermodynamics plays at least some role in the "manifestations" of time. Now, even though I am well aware of the reasons behind their reluctance to completely separate the second law of thermodynamics from the arrow of time, I find quite unsettling their equally desperate and stubborn insistence that the apparent unidirectionality of the second law must be (even if only partially) directly implicated in the physicality of time. That insistence is, of course, fuelled by the incumbency of the conventional cosmological model. It is by and large that unyielding faith in the expanding model of the universe that has prevented the conventional physicists from seeing the real law that has given the Universe that unidirectional arrow of time. (There is also one other factor that has contributed to the general misunderstanding of time: the lopsidedness of the Minkowskian spacetime.) My mind, however, has found a better model for the Universe we know. A model in which the spatio-temporal dimensions exist in perfect union with all matter-energy and in which all universal forces appear as natural effects of a first cause. A model which has also gotten a naturally occurring, law-abiding, unidirectional arrow of time.
A brief introduction to my cosmological model and its spacetime
My model of the Universe is, unsurprisingly (or, rather, predictably) the perfect antithesis of the conventional expanding universe. For instance, if the conventional universe came into being courtesy of a big bang, my universe began its existence with a big bong. If the conventional universe, then, began with an explosion, my universe began its existence with an implosion. This is the first antithetical difference between the conventional cosmological model, which you all know, and mine--of which below there are two graphic illustrations shown. I suggest you take a little time and look at them without reading my explanations, which will follow. It might turn out to be a quite interesting little experience.
The picture above on the left is a graphic illustration of the simplest possible imploding universe. The object at the centre of the cube has been created by a symmetric spatial collapse (or an implosion). Without going into too much detail here, the story the picture tells is this: "In the beginning there was nothing. But what was nothing? Nothing was a perfect symmetry, infinite in spatial extension, in which every point was identical to any. In the beginning, then, there was an infinitely extending and perfectly symmetric state of absolute uniformity--a state which only nothingness could form. This state of perfectly symmetric nothingness, however, did not last long at all--for a state like that is hopelessly unstable. Hence, the big bong I mentioned--the first event--in which the perfectly symmetric energy potential that existed at every point in space collapsed toward a common, central, point".
As for the picture on the right, that illustrates the spacetime of my understanding. This is the second antithetical difference between my understanding and the conventional one. If explanations are required, the time dimension of my cosmological model extends (in total contradiction to the mainstream view) along all three spatial axes. That's all I want to say for now, really. There is one other thing I must mention, however. Although the time dimension of my understanding shares with the space dimension the three conventional axes of length, breadth, and height, it shouldn't be difficult at all now to see that my time is also unidirectional. Just like the conventional one, one might opine. Yet so antithetically different, I say.
It shouldn't be too hard either now to see which law is, to my mind, responsible for time's unidirectionality. The law I have in mind is thus not the second, but the first law of thermodynamics. Indeed it is the first law that gives time a one-way axis (at least in my universe, that is). Indeed it is also because of the first law of thermodynamics that in my universe time-travel is a subject strictly discussed in fairytales. Indeed, it is solely due to the first law that anything at all exists, as far as I'm concerned. And, finally, it is indeed under the governance of the first law that the reality unfolds.
The first law of thermodynamics is fundamentally a conservation law. In fact the first law of thermodynamics is the most fundamental conservation law of the Universe. Simply, and uncompromisingly, the first law states that the amount of energy that exists at this point in time in the Universe is exactly the same with the amount that existed and that shall exist at any point in the universal history. Now, this is some statement, make no mistake about it. Yet we believe, myself included, that there's no other conceivable assumption (for in the end an assumption it is) safer than that of the energy conservation! Alas, although in the conventional physics the law of energy conservation is as important as it is in my own understanding, to my mind physicists have failed to grasp its full ramifications. I, for instance, have never been able to understand how you can have together, as it is in the conventional physics, a law of energy conservation, a conserved baryonic number, but not a conserved number of photons!. In fact I have never been able to understand how you can have a law of energy conservation, but not a law of spatial conservation.
In my universe everything is conserved. For example, in the simplest possible imploding universe, which I illustrated above, there is not only a law of energy conservation, or a law of spatial conservation--there is also a law of spatio-energy conservation. In effect, if you look again at the picture above on the left, the mass of the object at the centre of the cube is exactly conserved within the spatial volume of the cube. What does that mean? It means that if the mass of the object could be uniformly distributed within the volumetric space of the cube, the universe I have depicted graphically above will revert to its original state of nothingness, which I'd depicted verbally. In fact the reality of my universe exists in three fundamental states: as mass, as space, and as (energy) potential. Now, these three fundamental states are seemingly separate physical entities, but the truth is that they are three different (but complementary) manifestations of a singular reality, which I'll discuss some other time.
Conclusion. Why time makes no sense in the conventional brain
I was saying earlier on this page that I am mystified by physicists' ongoing lamentation about the lawlessness of the conventional time. That isn't really true, however. It would be much truer if I said instead "I am well aware of why the conventional physicists continue to be mystified by the seemingly lawless manifestation of time". The simple fact is that the conventional physicists of the last 100-150 years have been systematically pushed further and further away from the target-path. A more elaborate fact is that they simply reap today the harvest that has grown from the seeds that have been planted then. After all they should know better than anyone that in physics the compounding effects of a mistake are greater than in any other investigative endeavour. A physicist's work, from that point of view, is similar to that of a professional shooter (and not only because in both professions even a minuscule error at one end produces a grossly disproportionate result at the other).
Simplicity, logic, and common sense, are no longer the guiding principles in a physicist's arsenal. Imagination has also left the conventional establishment, driven away by the rigidity and formalism of the currently reigning dogma. Physics has never been so unproductive in the modern era, and neither has it ever been so dull, yet so bombastically pretentious. Take, for instance, as an immediate example the mainstream understanding of the time dimension (which is, by the way, pretty well represented by the citations I have used on this page) and compare it to the one I'll describe below.
The one-directional arrow of time, which is apparent in the real Universe, exists in my cosmological model as a direct effect of the first law of thermodynamics. If you remember the 'genesis'-story of my universe you will recall that the original state of universal nothingness was completely unstable, and that it was therefore destroyed (in a symmetrically uniform fashion) by my big-bong. That was the first event, which gave birth to my universe and which brought spacetime (my spacetime) into existence. And if you now remember my insistence that in my universe matter, space, and (energy) potential are all conserved into each other (which basically means that they are fundamentally perfectly symmetric) then you will have perhaps already envisaged by now the nature of the time dimension in my universe. Most simply, from the first event to this very point in the universal history, what we call time has been manifested by a precise, subsequent, and continuous, re-arrangement (or re-distribution, or re-structuring) of the matter, space time, and (energy) potential, which together form the reality--the Universe.
The time dimension of my universe, therefore, is not subject to any force and it is in no way affected by any propagatory speed or observation. The only thing that governs the temporal evolution of my universe is, as I said before, the first law of thermodynamics, and it should be quite obvious now why the arrow of time is unidirectional and why travelling in time simply cannot exist. After all, you must have realised that in my universe there is one only reality that can exist at any point in spacetime: that of the present. Indeed in my universe neither the past, nor the future, can truthfully ever at all exist. Think about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment