Absolute time and the speed of light

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Frank Aiello
Posts: 11
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 4:22 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A. Einstein
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Frank Aiello » May 19th, 2014, 12:12 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
Frank Aiello wrote:Once again, the physical theory works. Of course, I'm sure this won't be posted either, as my last post giving a fully reasonable articulation of why gravity is the manifestation of the curvature of 4D spacetime, and why the effects of relativity (e.g.time dilation and length contraction) have been experimentally confirmed within an extraordinarily high degree of accuracy, was not posted.

Continue arguing against an highly experimentally well-confirmed theory that describes almost everything we know about space, time, and motion on philosophical grounds. Continue sitting in your armchairs.
Time dilation and length contraction have not been experimentally confirmed. A temporal asynchronicity between moving clocks and stationary clocks has been confirmed, nothing more. That time dilates and lengths contract is an inference drawn from the mathematics, not an empirical fact, and a far simpler explanation for this asynchronicity is readily to hand. If we abandon the nonsensical notion of spacetime and regard time alone as being physically real then all motion occurs in the time "dimension" only, in accordance with both common sense and our innermost instincts. In this perspective we regard a clock as an entity which is coming into existence at the speed of light. However if one clock is also physically moving relative to another one they must also be moving apart in time. To suggest that one is ticking slower than the other is to say that it is coming into existence more slowly and this is plainly wrong-headed in an ordinary gravitational field. This bogus world-view relies on the contrived assumption of co-ordinate time in SR, but co-ordinate time is nothing more than a mathematical confection to reconcile the disparate observations of differently located observers. Co-ordinate time is not physically real. In fact the moving clock does tick infinitesimally slower than the stationary one during the brief period that it is accelerating, but this is a gravitational effect and in any ordinary experimental scenario it would be negligible. However negligible is not synonymous with irrelevant and herein lies the secret of quantum gravity, a subject for another day.

Time is not interwoven with space at all, as Minkowski would have us believe. Time is interwoven with gravity, as shown to us by GR. SR and GR are therefore mutually exclusive, so the physicists might need to pick which one makes the most sense. Both are deeply flawed but I'll go with GR as having a more coherent temporal ontology because the link between time and gravity has been empirically established countless times, whereas the link between time and space just leads us down into counter-intuitive conceptual rabbit burrows, as well as dead and alive cats. Not for me, thanks.

Regards Leo
You've said a lot, and addressing each point individually would be far too taxing. So, I'll keep it brief. Firstly, we have experimentally observed time dilation with muons produced by cosmic rays. The decay process of muons also seems to provide experimental evidence for length contraction.

Now, granted I'm not a physicist, but the experimental evidence for special relativity seems to be very high. My point was that a lot of people on these forums seem to want to reject relativity because it may have counter-intuitive consequences, but intuition is not a guide to reality. You have to go where the observations and the experiments take you, not where intuition takes you, and that was my fundamental point.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Obvious Leo » May 19th, 2014, 3:15 am

We'll have to agree to differ, Frank, because none of the claims you make have been proven. Length contraction and ordinary inertial time dilation are conclusions drawn from observation and are in fact no more than observer effects. This is a simple mis-application of inductive logic, a common fault in physics. This becomes particularly apparent around and within black holes where differently located observers will literally see vastly different images of reality if they were to watch an object plunging into the abyss. Which preferred observer is observing the real world? Answer. None of them. The only bloke who can tell us what's really happening to the object plunging into the black hole is the observer on the object and he will see only one thing. He accelerates steadily straight on in there without noticing anything unusual. His proper time will dilate as the strength of the gravitational field increases but he will be unaware of this. His spatial dimensions will be unaltered (until he's crushed) but each separate observer will see them distorted differently, depending on their location. These distortions MUST be an optical illusion for all of these various observers or else they couldn't all be seeing something different.

Co-ordinate time is nothing more than a mathematical artefact which allows us to calculate what different observers will observe. It has no ontological validity and this is the problem that lies at the heart of the spacetime paradigm. I have absolutely no problem at all with relativity and actually understand it very well indeed. My bitch is with the Minkowski spacetime paradigm,which is quite simply not relativistic enough and rests on the false assumption that 3-dimensional space is physically real. No philosopher since the pre-Socratics would dare say such a daft thing, but naturally it would be career suicide for a physicist to be caught reading a philosophy book. What can they possibly learn when they already know everything?

Regards Leo

AB1OB
Posts: 239
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by AB1OB » December 23rd, 2014, 12:18 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:............................. I have absolutely no problem at all with relativity and actually understand it very well indeed. My bitch is with the Minkowski spacetime paradigm,which is quite simply not relativistic enough and rests on the false assumption that 3-dimensional space is physically real. No philosopher since the pre-Socratics would dare say such a daft thing, but naturally it would be career suicide for a physicist to be caught reading a philosophy book. What can they possibly learn when they already know everything?

Regards Leo
The only problem with Minkowski space is the paper is never large enough to draw things to scale.

But at its very nature, time is a unilateral, radial trajectory at a constant speed (c).

Image

At the Big Bang, there where widely divergent radials, traveling at c.

After Recombination-parallelism of galactic trajectories, traveling at c.

Scientific guffaw, "Things slowed down to the speeds we see today."

Correct perspective, "Things never changed from moving a trajectory at c, only internal slower relative motions developed through Recombination."

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Obvious Leo » January 1st, 2015, 12:21 am

AB1OB wrote:But at its very nature, time is a unilateral, radial trajectory at a constant speed (c).
This statement is not physical in any of the currently accepted physical models. For a start the Minkowski time is bilateral and not unilateral, which on its own is enough to explain why spacetime makes no sense. The equations of spacetime are time invariant, which directly contradicts our experience of the physical world. I have no idea what you're trying to get at with your "radial trajectory" of time but as a scientist of long standing I can assure you that this is not a scientific concept. Time has a fractal trajectory which is not spatially reducible so the spatial term "radial" can have no meaning with respect to it.

As a final point of gratuitous pedantry I also need to point out that the speed of light is not a constant and nobody in the world of physics would dare to make such a claim. What our epistemic models of physics actually tell us is that the speed of light is observed to be a constant in the referential frame of the observer. The fact that this is logically impossible doesn't seem to bother the physicists very much but it bothers the **** out of those of us with a taste for a comprehensible universe. The observed constant speed of light is complete and sufficient proof that the observer does not observe the real world, a fact which every philosopher in history has taken pains to stress.

Somebody should tell the physicists and put them out of their misery.

Regards Leo

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Neopolitan » May 15th, 2015, 2:37 am

AB1OB wrote:Got it, I had missed that post on my OP.

But I would really like to know if anyone is 'following my line of thought'?

(not to accept it but understand this description of the spherical expansion thing???)
I certainly understand the mathematics of it, but I think you've got the interpretation wrong. I'm especially uncomfortable about your pool on a train example. I much prefer your onion example, but this is because it's very much like what I put together quite a while back. But as implied, where you take your thinking is quite different from where I took it.

-- Updated May 15th, 2015, 10:49 pm to add the following --
AB1OB wrote:If we have 360 observers positioned at every angle of a large circle and right in the center of the circle is a light bulb.

I turn on the light.

Which observer sees it first?

Why?
All else being equal, the skinniest one (or perhaps more accurately, the one observing less gravity, which might be related to a number of skinnier people around that observer). Because the photons that travel to the observer with the least gravity will travel both straighter and also not undergo time dilation. Not that the effect is likely to be noticeable.

(I'm slowly working my way through the thread :) )
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Atreyu » May 16th, 2015, 1:22 am

Obvious Leo wrote: This statement is not physical in any of the currently accepted physical models. For a start the Minkowski time is bilateral and not unilateral, which on its own is enough to explain why spacetime makes no sense. The equations of spacetime are time invariant, which directly contradicts our experience of the physical world. I have no idea what you're trying to get at with your "radial trajectory" of time but as a scientist of long standing I can assure you that this is not a scientific concept. Time has a fractal trajectory which is not spatially reducible so the spatial term "radial" can have no meaning with respect to it.
If we take our experiences as an absolutely real objective property of the world, then there is nothing to philosophize about. One of the fundamental principles of philosophy is that we do not perceive the world the way it really is, thus the attempt to reason it out. Spacetime makes perfect sense mathematically, but naturally it isn't going to make sense according to our direct perception of the world. And philosophers generally do not dismiss good mathematical models out of hand just because they don't jibe with the picture of the world presented to us by our senses. Your knowledge and love of science is clouding your philosophical outlook in a negative way....

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Neopolitan » May 16th, 2015, 3:33 am

Well, I've crunched my way through the thread, and would like to point out only one more thing. The "speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. When c is defined, it is defined quite specifically as "the speed of light in vacuum". The value c is also the fastest speed that any thing can go (and I specifically say "any thing" rather than "anything" and mention "speed" because long cast shadows or beams can have a celerity of greater than the speed of light). Light actually travels at all sorts of speeds, depending on the medium - the slowest speed measured is 17 m/s which is about the maximum speed you should drive in a built up non-residential area (60 km/hr or 40 mph) - so of course the "speed of light" is not a constant. We should really give it a different name to avoid the confusion, but most of us know what the caveats are and most of us aren't interested in pretending that the caveats aren't there.

I like "universal speed limit", because that's what it is (if we are talking about spatial speeds). Alternatively, we could refer to it as our spacetime speed, because that's what it is as well. This last one might sound strange, but the quite simple maths holds up.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

User avatar
Percarus
Posts: 162
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:34 am
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Perth - Australia
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Percarus » May 16th, 2015, 8:33 am

I found this thread very interesting, and I was wondering if I could drag in the concept of Tachyons... Of course, what causes a change of speed of light in 'mediums' would be the very elemental force interactions that photons have with leptons/quarks/weak-bosons and ultimately the Higgs boson, I would guess. Space, by earlier definition, is signified as the medium by which gravity travels through, and to that very respect our contingent perspective of the universe is bounded as dictated by the bosons (gravity) because all our five senses derive fruition from this elementary form. What I am then suggesting is that if tachyons are detected when their speed is at the lowest, that of light (c), we can then quite possibly expand our phase shift perception as ascertained by a higher dimension (parallel universe) as a whole new world of quantum mechanics pops up. But that said, I would argue that tachyons would only be observed at the speed of light (here assuming tachyons have no interaction with gravity) at a point in the universe which there is absolute no gravity. Whether as to we can create such a gravity laden state artificially is much debatable because I would attribute the very fabric of space to be ultimately comprised of gravity fields to a certain degree. I thought about Lagrangian points (for an ideal point of detection of Tachyons) but they by themselves are fallible (or are they) because gravity in itself is tugging at a zero-dimensional vector from all directions - and to detect a particle within a zero-dimensional vector seems altogether very ludicrous.

I am just an amateur rookie who is typing the first thing that comes to his head, so please if anyone can come up with a theory as to where in the universe we can observe this effect where there is a space with absolute no gravity [to my understanding diminishes with the square of the distance (the inverse square law), but it never falls to zero] then by all means we may escape the confines as attributed to the particle that least interacts with gravity (the photon).

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Neopolitan » May 16th, 2015, 9:36 pm

Tachyons, which are theoretical only, having never been observed, would only travel faster than the speed of light. Personally, I put them in the science fiction category, since they aren't necessary. If you can't find a need for them within physics, I'll certainly have a good think about them, but for the moment that would seem to be nugatory effort.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

User avatar
Percarus
Posts: 162
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:34 am
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Perth - Australia
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Percarus » May 17th, 2015, 4:52 am

So in the absence of a gravity pull/field, or absence of space (as we know it), photons cannot degrade themselves into tachyons then? I see time itself as becoming 'freezed' at the speed of light this only purely on a relativistic level. That is, in defining the concept of time itself we have set a benchmark with the value of 'c' - and hence ascertained gravity as a categorizer for the very limits of our known universe. What if we are able to create an artificial singularity devoid of gravity?

You can't travel at the speed of light. So it appears it is a meaningless question.

The reason some people will say that time freezes at the speed of light is that it's possible to take two points on any path going through spacetime at less than the speed of light and calculate the amount of time that a particle would experience as it travels between those points along that path.

Quarks and electrons, as far as I am aware, are the smallest particles in existence and it has not been proven yet if they are simply indivisible, but if they are then mayhap there is something that is not encapsulated to the limits of time as related to gravity. I do not know much what 'gluons' are for that matter. But anyway, I would foresee the notion that at a singularity point (ie: inside a black hole, mayhap a quasar) space fabric itself may be so twisted so as to ascertain a distortion in the rules as imposed by the wavelength emission of photons. Ok, this is all very speculative so I better shut up.

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Neopolitan » May 17th, 2015, 9:21 pm

Percarus, you seem to have provided a potpourri of terms that sound a bit scientific (tachyons, quarks, quasars, gluons, "wavelength emission", "singularity point", "not encapsulated to the limits of time as related to gravity") and an archaic term more appropriate in a Shakespeare play (mayhap thou didst so unbeknownst) together with a completely non-standard usage of the word "ascertain" (or perhaps I just couldn't work out what you meant), with the result being an incomprehensible mess. This is possibly a good thing. I'd point out the errors that stand out in that incomprehensible mess, but by doing so I'd be giving your post far too much credit.

Of course, if you can provide some actual support for your notion regarding "time itself ... becoming 'freezed' at the speed of light", then I'll have to take it all back.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

User avatar
Percarus
Posts: 162
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:34 am
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Perth - Australia
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Percarus » May 20th, 2015, 5:23 am

I am sorry Neopolitan but I am but an amateur when it comes to the intricacies of quantum mechanics (QM). My little knowledge of relativity would suggest that time itself approaches a 'dead-still' as we approach the speed of light – I thought this was common reason, although I find the topic of relativity itself rather restricted to the notion that the photon is the fastest thing/particle that can ever be conceptualized.
Light speed is FAST. I will discuss so-called "relativistic effects" of approaching the speed of light. Basically "weird things begin to happen", and it's pretty cool. Time actually begins to slow down, and your "mass" will increase as you approach the speed of light. Ref: 1
Ok, this video is quite out-of-date but its significance is still the same:
In this video it is postulated that there is an energy field that permeates throughout the ENTIRE universe, aka. The Higgs Field

I preferably like to see the interaction of the Higgs boson as pertinent to other particles from this simple schematic:

Image

As you can see the electron (a lepton) is a primary cause of the emission of photons as ascertained by a drop in electron valence shells (if my rudimentary chemistry is right)
Photons are the force carriers for electro-magnetism

Quarks have intrinsic properties, including electric charge; a categorizer for electro-magnetism to take place as far as my understanding goes. Then my question arises as to whether gluons, who in turn mediate an electric charge, are able to solicit a particle that interacts to a significant greater degree to the Higgs field and hence purports the notion of a micro-quantum wave particle that could by all means be considered a Tachyon for purposes of the discussion.
Could gluons be force attributors akin to an electron drop in valence shell for micro electro-magnetism?

This tachyon, being gluon induced, would always move at a speed faster than light provided it is not slowed down to a significant extent by the Higgs field (provided such 'force carriers for electro magnetism' exist. The point is we have no way of detecting this perturbation/anomaly if it exists at all, not as far as we are aware.

Spacetime intervals may be classified into three distinct types, based on whether the temporal separation (c2Ʌt2) or the spatial separation (Ʌr2 of the two events is greater: time-like, light-like or space-like. A time-like interval would be measured by an observer with a clock between two events at less than the speed of light. A light-like interval is defined by an interval just passed by the speed of light, ie: a second. A space-like interval dictates that not enough time passes between two occurrences to exist a causal relationship between the events at the speed of light or slower – the events are said to occur in retrospective of each other's future or past.

Ok, this is very confusing to me, and I am learning as I go, but I fail to see the paradox that tachyons could cause paradoxes in the very fabric of space-like time travel, simply because they are simply particles that move at speeds faster than light, that is all; if said to exist. From my limited knowledge of physics I would even go insofar as to postulate that photons, given absence of a Higgs field, would by all means deteriorate to the point of becoming tachyons themselves as its energy decreases and hence its speed increases. Without a fabric of the universe as ascertained by the Higgs field to keep the photon-like electro-magnetism form into shape I would postulate that photons would in essential dematerialize into nothingness through the nether void, just as all things once originated from. Mayhap in this process produce small perturbations within the zero-dimensional field.

Tachyons, to my understanding, do not belong to concepts as readily ascertained by the laws of our current physical 3D universe but it is equally plausible that in an alternate dimension there are other elementary particles (that do not interact with our matter) that in fact impede or progress the speed of a tachyon. Quoting Wiki:
In theories that do not respect Lorentz invariance the speed of light is not (necessarily) a barrier, and particles can travel faster than the speed of light without infinite energy or causal paradoxes.
Ok, scrap all that rubbish asides because that is just my dismal understanding of the topic. What I wanted to know primarily is as to whether 'gluons' can be attributive to micro-electro-magnetism?

Is there a physicist in the house that could shed some light into any of this?

Cogito ergo sum
Moderator
Posts: 174
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Cogito ergo sum » June 11th, 2015, 10:21 pm

Happy recluse wrote:I thought I had posted this yesterday, but it hasn't appeared yet. This reason explains things if this OP appears twice.

According to relativity, time within one reference frame is from the time in another reference frame. For example, a “minute” for A, who is moving, is longer than a “minute” for B, who is stationary. The conclusion is that there is no absolute and correct length of time for a minute. Some minutes take longer than other minutes, and none of them is the “right” one.

The speed of light is constant. Speed is distance over time. So, if the speed of light is constant, and one element of that speed is time, then a minute is always the same for every beam of light. That is, there is an absolute or a correct time.

The point is that it is for an observer. A photon is not an observer. So yes according to the definition of a constant, the speed of light would be the same for every photon. But a photon is not observing another photon.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by SimpleGuy » November 21st, 2017, 2:18 pm

In special and in general relativity , every observer is possessing his own time and space and his measuerements are for himself normal. But if one observes moved intertial systems, this changes length of others moving in the relative direction of the distance vector between them in 4-space, get contracted and even time gets prologed for you as an observer for all effects in the coodinate system of the moving observer. This is even the same for the other observer. Time is nothing absolute although both people feel normal if they are moving equicontinous with constant velocity in special relativity the coordinate system of the other one that you observe seems ridiculously changed if they are moving close to the speed of light. For himself the observed feels no change in physics for the other person observing him the motions seem slow and somehow compressed or jolted. The observation of each other is somehow different from your reality. Once you would reach light you switch out of the possible observation of the other system, which is prohibited or no real two-way observation of physical systems would be possible.

-- Updated November 21st, 2017, 2:22 pm to add the following --

In addition one has to say that for both systems the speed of light stays the same. This is the physical law and with this constant beeing the transformation of the system behaves like a lorentz transformation in space which introduces then a lorentzian-space time metrics in the space. This picture just changes when gravity comes into play. Then the whole system is a curved manifold connected to the energy-impulse tensor, that has locally the property previously stated with an eigentime etc.

-- Updated November 21st, 2017, 2:31 pm to add the following --

By the way the lenght contraction is just like calculated in the direction of the distance vector of the two objects, if the other object moves in the direction of this vector, otherwise one has to transform this into different directions. The mass of the observed object increases if the object is close to the speed of light for the observer (this is important), so lot's of energy is stored for the observer in an increasing mass of the object , although the person in the special relativistic setting feels normal for himself.

User avatar
Frewah
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Frewah » October 3rd, 2018, 8:09 pm

The speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's equations. What you get is that is the square root of two products, one of which has to do with conductivity, ε and μ. This suggests that speed of light is constant as long as ε and μ are constant. Therefore, if any of these values were different in the past, the speed of light would also have to be different. There's a hypothesis that c had a higher value in the early universe which, if true, does explain some problems. If so, it would provide an answer to the horizon problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

The point is that ε and μ are the fundamental properties from which c can be derived.

Post Reply