Any plausible explanation for dynamical length contraction?

[PeterDonis]

It occurs to me that one could even choose to claim that everything not in my causal future is fixed and determined, and then the whole andromeda argument still breaks down completely.

The andromeda argument as it is usually given does (sort of--but see comments at the end below), but your claim leaves open a slightly different argument that does not break down. If, for example, all events not in the causal future (i.e., past light cone plus spacelike separated "elsewhere") of the Andromedans launching the space fleet are fixed and certain, that includes events in our causal future here on Earth. And similarly for us with regard to events in the causal future of the Andromedans launching the fleet. What's more, there will be events in "elsewhere" of both Earth and Andromeda, which are now, by this new premise, taken to be fixed and certain, whose "elsewhere" region includes the arrival of the Andromedan space fleet on Earth (just pick an event far enough away from both Earth and Andromeda). So this alternative premise does not avoid the block universe conclusion. (Basically, this alternative premise is where the block universe argument I described ends up, once you add relativity of simultaneity to the premise that all events to the past of any surface of simultaneity are fixed and certain. That's why it leads to the same conclusion.)

 

[PAllen]

The andromeda argument as it is usually given does (sort of--but see comments at the end below), but your claim leaves open a slightly different argument that does not break down. If, for example, all events not in the causal future (i.e., past light cone plus spacelike separated "elsewhere") of the Andromedans launching the space fleet are fixed and certain, that includes events in our causal future here on Earth. And similarly for us with regard to events in the causal future of the Andromedans launching the fleet. What's more, there will be events in "elsewhere" of both Earth and Andromeda, which are now, by this new premise, taken to be fixed and certain, whose "elsewhere" region includes the arrival of the Andromedan space fleet on Earth (just pick an event far enough away from both Earth and Andromeda). So this alternative premise does not avoid the block universe conclusion. (Basically, this alternative premise is where the block universe argument I described ends up, once you add relativity of simultaneity to the premise that all events to the past of any surface of simultaneity are fixed and certain. That's why it leads to the same conclusion.)

Yes, I see. It just leads to a version of the argument using invariants, rather than avoiding it entirely the way the past light cone boundary does.

 

[Dale]

I have never been comfortable with the whole “fixed and certain” past and uncertain future anyway. If the world is deterministic then isn’t the future fixed and certain regardless of the causal structure? And if the world is non-deterministic then is even the past certain? To me it seems disconnected with the causal structure of spacetime.

 

[PAllen]

I have never been comfortable with the whole “fixed and certain” past and uncertain future anyway. If the world is deterministic then isn’t the future fixed and certain regardless of the causal structure? And if the world is non-deterministic then is even the past certain? To me it seems disconnected with the causal structure of spacetime.

Interesting idea, but, in principle, now, I have information on everything in my causal past. It seems hard not to have this be fixed and certain. Even QM and QFT don’t change this, including entanglement.

 

[anuttarasammyak]

Referring to post #3, thanks for your clarification. Historically Michelson Morley experiment expelled LET, I understand. The experiment suggests that the ether is at rest for every observer. How is it possible when two bodies with the observants have relative velocity ?

 

[PAllen]

The andromeda argument as it is usually given does (sort of--but see comments at the end below), but your claim leaves open a slightly different argument that does not break down. If, for example, all events not in the causal future (i.e., past light cone plus spacelike separated "elsewhere") of the Andromedans launching the space fleet are fixed and certain, that includes events in our causal future here on Earth. And similarly for us with regard to events in the causal future of the Andromedans launching the fleet. What's more, there will be events in "elsewhere" of both Earth and Andromeda, which are now, by this new premise, taken to be fixed and certain, whose "elsewhere" region includes the arrival of the Andromedan space fleet on Earth (just pick an event far enough away from both Earth and Andromeda). So this alternative premise does not avoid the block universe conclusion. (Basically, this alternative premise is where the block universe argument I described ends up, once you add relativity of simultaneity to the premise that all events to the past of any surface of simultaneity are fixed and certain. That's why it leads to the same conclusion.)

A more succinct version of this argument is that any event in my causal future is within what is fixed and certain for some event within what is fixed and certain for me. So yes, you need to adopt past light cone as the fixed and certain boundary to avoid this.

 

[alexandrinushka]

Basically, yes. But the key difference is that the past light cone of a given event is invariant, whereas surfaces of simultaneity are frame-dependent (or, if you prefer, simultaneity convention dependent). So saying that the past light cone of a given event is fixed is an invariant statement, whereas saying that all events to the past of a surface of simultaneity that contains a given event is not.

To be honest, I am not sure that this weaker reading of Andromeda saves the uncertain future. I need to check and draw some diagrams myself and do some thinking. From what I remember from reading on it several years ago, I'd say that "no", even in this weaker reading we arrive to scenarios, where future must be fixed. But then again, I cannot affirm it with certainty. By the way, did you try to publish this refutation in order to get some P2P constructive criticism? I have a hard time believing that your alternative has evaded or hasn't crossed the minds of influential philosophers...

 

[PeterDonis]

I am not sure that this weaker reading of Andromeda saves the uncertain future.

I didn't say it did. My argument in the Insights article was not that the block universe is false. (Unfortunately, multiple people in the comment thread talked as though that was my argument, even though I repeatedly clarified that it wasn't.) My argument was simply that the block universe is not required by SR. It is not the only viewpoint that is logically consistent with SR. But it is a viewpoint that is logically consistent with SR, and I never said otherwise.

did you try to publish this refutation in order to get some P2P constructive criticism?

I didn't have to; I'm not the only one that's made those observations. IIRC there was at least one peer-reviewed paper linked to in the comment thread on the Insights article that made similar criticisms to mine.

 

[PAllen]

I didn't say it did.

It definitely saves the possibility of uncertain future. The proof seems trivial:

1) For me, what is fixed and certain is within my past light cone.
2) For any event in my past light cone, its past light cone is a subset of mine (trivial mathematics). Therefore, no event that is fixed and certain for me has events fixed and certain for it that are not already fixed and certain for me.

 

[PeroK]

To be honest, I am not sure that this weaker reading of Andromeda saves the uncertain future. I need to check and draw some diagrams myself and do some thinking. From what I remember from reading on it several years ago, I'd say that "no", even in this weaker reading we arrive to scenarios, where future must be fixed. But then again, I cannot affirm it with certainty. By the way, did you try to publish this refutation in order to get some P2P constructive criticism? I have a hard time believing that your alternative has evaded or hasn't crossed the minds of influential philosophers...

I don't want to change the subject too much, but let me try you with this "rigorous proof" that SR is inconsistent:

1) A spaceship flies past Earth at a speed of ##\frac 4 5 c##, say. A clock on Earth and a clock on the ship are synchronised (this can be done locally).

2) The spaceship continues for ##1## year according to the onboard clock. During this time, the Earth clock runs slow (by a factor of ##\frac 3 5##). According to the spaceship, therefore, the Earth clock reads only ##\frac 3 5## years.

3) At this point the spaceship passes another ship moving in the opposite direction at ##\frac 4 5c## relative to Earth. A clock on the inbound ship is locally synchronised with the one on the outbound ship. I.e. to read ##1## years.

4) The inbound ship continues towards Earth and flies past one year later according to the ship clock, which now reads ##2## years.

5) During the inbound journey, the Earth clock has been running slow with the same factor of ##\frac 3 5## according to the ship clock. The Earth clock reads ##\frac 6 5## years.

That could not be simpler: the Earth clock was always running slower than the relevant ship clock.

And, yet, according to the Earth clock, both ships' clocks were always running slower.

That is as clear a contradiction as one could hope to find, isn't it?

I'm interested what you think about that?

 

[alexandrinushka]

I don't want to change the subject too much, but let me try you with this "rigorous proof" that SR is inconsistent:

1) A spaceship flies past Earth at a speed of ##\frac 4 5 c##, say. A clock on Earth and a clock on the ship are synchronised (this can be done locally).

2) The spaceship continues for ##1## year according to the onboard clock. During this time, the Earth clock runs slow (by a factor of ##\frac 3 5##). According to the spaceship, therefore, the Earth clock reads only ##\frac 3 5## years.

3) At this point the spaceship passes another ship moving in the opposite direction at ##\frac 4 5c## relative to Earth. A clock on the inbound ship is locally synchronised with the one on the outbound ship. I.e. to read ##1## years.

4) The inbound ship continues towards Earth and flies past one year later according to the ship clock, which now reads ##2## years.

5) During the inbound journey, the Earth clock has been running slow with the same factor of ##\frac 3 5## according to the ship clock. The Earth clock reads ##\frac 6 5## years.

That could not be simpler: the Earth clock was always running slower than the relevant ship clock.

And, yet, according to the Earth clock, both ships' clocks were always running slower.

That is as clear a contradiction as one could hope to find, isn't it?

I'm interested what you think about that?

This reminds me a bit about the twins' paradox, when one twin is older on return than the one staying on Earth. As far as I know, there are ways to resolve such scenarios within the framework of SR.
So wait... are you claiming SR is contradictory?

As for the Andromeda paradox you've quoted, I have not come up with an answer yet. To me @PeterDonis is proposing a different scenario, that might not lead to the same conclusion. But the question is actually: is the initial scenario, where one draws planes of simultaneity from each event valid. If you think they are then yes, the Putnam conclusion is unavoidable. If you question the legitimacy of drawing such planes of simultaneity (and I think you are), then the conclusion does not follow.
So if A is true (A being lack of absolute simultaneity), and B is true (the legitimacy of drawing a plane of simultaneity for each particular event), then C follows (block universe). And truly I do not think B is an "illegal" operation. But again, my thought process is not ripe in this regard, I need to come back to it.

 

[PeroK]

This reminds me a bit about the twins' paradox, when one twin is older on return than the one staying on Earth. As far as I know, there are ways to resolve such scenarios within the framework of SR.
So wait... are you claiming SR is contradictory?

What I'm saying is that if that confounds you, then you are in no position to evaluate the theory of SR. You're still at the "beginner student" level, struggling to grasp the nature of Minkowski spacetime.

Unless and until you have a mastery of the fundamentals, what you think about the theory is not very important. You need to learn and master the theory first.

 

[alexandrinushka]

What I'm saying is that if that confounds you, then you are in no position to evaluate the theory of SR. You're still at the "beginner student" level, struggling to grasp the nature of Minkowski spacetime.

Unless and until you have a mastery of the fundamentals, what you think about the theory is not very important. You need to learn and master the theory first.

You are write, I must master SR first before expressing myself on it.
Please note though that I have written your twin paradox has a resolution in SR and I've expressed a surprise about your claim.

 

[PeroK]

You are write, I must master SR first before expressing myself on it.
Please note though that I have written your twin paradox has a resolution in SR and I've expressed a surprise about your claim.

That is my version of the twin paradox. Of course, I wasn't the first to think of how to get rid of acceleration (or gravity) altogether. And, it shows why differential ageing and time dilation are actually fundamentally different.

My point is that it's impossible to identify the flaw in my argument without understanding the geometry of Minkowski spacetime. The same is true of the Andromeda paradox.

I'd make one final point. In classical physics, a (head-on) collision between two particles is entirely deterministic. Whereas, ironically given the above paper, a collision in SR becomes probabilistic. It takes QM to calculate the probabilities, but there is more than one possible outcome. For example, a single particle may remain as it is (the only possibility in classical mechanics); or, decay into two particles with less total rest mass. That's why someone writing a paper about SR implying determinism is a bit sad and funny. And, perhaps, "pathetic" is too strong a word!

And, just to note in passing, that the real use of SR is not directly as a theory of spacetime, but as a theory of energy-momentum. That's where its real importance lies. And, in fact, if you study particle physics or QFT (Quantum Field Theory), you will rarely see mention of "time dilation" or "length contraction" or "simultaneity". What you will be calculating are energy-momentum four-vector relationships - which are at the heart of these advanced subjects.

That's another reason that the endless analysis of time and space by non-physicists is a bit of a side-show. Although physicists who present popular science must take a fair share of the blame. The thing that really matters is the updated theory of energy-momentum to replace Newton's laws.

PS I admit that I'm being slightly disingenuous here, in that the above paper deals with a different idea of determinism. Nevertheless, I still think it's quite amusing!

 

[Dale]

However, I don’t think that the OP is expressing any anti-SR sentiment. Rather that based on the reading they have done they think a non-aether version of SR requires the block universe which they don’t like, and a non-block-universe version of SR requires an aether which they worry is too ad hoc. I think they accept SR as a fact either way, and just worry about the philosophy.

@alexandrinushka please correct me if I have misjudged your intention here in any way.

 

[alexandrinushka]

However, I don’t think that the OP is expressing any anti-SR sentiment. Rather that based on the reading they have done they think a non-aether version of SR requires the block universe which they don’t like, and a non-block-universe version of SR requires an aether which they worry is too ad hoc. I think they accept SR as a fact either way, and just worry about the philosophy.

@alexandrinushka please correct me if I have misjudged your intention here in any way.

That is indeed very close to what I am thinking, you've pretty much summarised it.

 

[alexandrinushka]

And, just to note in passing, that the real use of SR is not directly as a theory of spacetime, but as a theory of energy-momentum. That's where its real importance lies. And, in fact, if you study particle physics or QFT (Quantum Field Theory), you will rarely see mention of "time dilation" or "length contraction" or "simultaneity". What you will be calculating are energy-momentum four-vector relationships - which are at the heart of these advanced subjects.

I think it completely eludes me how important the energy-momentum relationship is and how much it does and has done for modern physics. If I have read a bit about SR and am trying to grasp its basics, QFT is very much a mysterious world for me and I have not yet got the chance to delve into it.
But thanks for the comment, it only sparks my interest even more.
And yeah, I have also figured out on my own quite a long time ago that the twin paradox should be solvable without acceleration. TED has made quite a nice video on it, perfect (in my opinion) for beginners. I loved it

 

[Dale]

That is indeed very close to what I am thinking, you've pretty much summarised it.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think that it matters either way. The fact that both approaches (block universe and LET) are compatible with the same math and the same experimental data indicates that there is no real difference between the two.

The distinction that we draw is a purely human conceit and that distinction is not part of nature. As a result, we are free to use either, both, or neither as we find convenient and we are free to change what we use on a whim for any reason or no reason.

I tend to use LET for thinking about Doppler and block universe for thinking about most other things. I do that because I find it convenient and helpful in organizing my thoughts, not because either one of them uniquely represents nature.

 

[alexandrinushka]

I didn't have to; I'm not the only one that's made those observations. IIRC there was at least one peer-reviewed paper linked to in the comment thread on the Insights article that made similar criticisms to mine.

What I think you do not get is how desperately I want to understand and genuinely share your point of view. I am not sure there is anyone on this forum who is more "frightened" by the block universe than myself :D
It is just that I need to build the scenario in my head, than on the paper and then put a and b together to genuinely come to the conclusion that yes, the future of any individual is open (or, at least, is not ruled out as closed judging from SR).
I would therefore be grateful if you could share the paper you are talking about. There are six pages of comments linked to your article with many links, I am not sure which one you are referring to.
Also, if you don't mind, I might at some point PM you for more details (because, well, I do not want to annoy everyone on this forum by being too "slow"). Again, my willingness to get the logic of your argument and to see what facts are contingent is genuine, I can assure you.

 

[Dale]

I am not sure there is anyone on this forum who is more "frightened" by the block universe than myself :D

Why should you be frightened by it? An interpretation is simply a mental tool, a mnemonic device, for helping you organize your thoughts when thinking about a problem in the theory. My 5 year old sings a little song to remember telephone numbers, an interpretation is nothing more than that song.

Learn the interpretation, not as some frightening concept, but as an organizational tool. Use it where it helps and don't use it where it doesn't.

 

[alexandrinushka]

Why should you be frightened by it? An interpretation is simply a mental tool, a mnemonic device, for helping you organize your thoughts when thinking about a problem in the theory. My 5 year old sings a little song to remember telephone numbers, an interpretation is nothing more than that song.

Learn the interpretation, not as some frightening concept, but as an organizational tool. Use it where it helps and don't use it where it doesn't.

So... let's first put aside the issue of whether the Block Universe (BU) is a necessary conclusion of a standard interpretation of SR. I believe it is, what @PeterDonis claims resembles quite a lot with the argument against BU brought by Stein, 1968. It has been refuted by Petkov http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf among others. Successfully, I think. Whether Petkov's response is convincing will be left for another thread and discussion. Again, I desperately want to join @PeterDonis and Stein, rather than Petkov, but I want to do it in honest conviction, and I must admit that, judging from pure logic and strong arguments, Petkov is more convincing.

Anyway... Let's assume that BU follows from SR (If SR then BU). That implies embracing SR in its standard reading; light always travels with speed c (in any inertial frame) and all inertial frames are equivalent, Einstein's synchronization method is the only genuine one and there is no such thing as a superfluous absolute frame. I believe standard SR is not only elegant and beautiful, I believe it lacks any contradiction and is fully consistent with all modern experiments and can resolve any "paradox" (yeah, twin stuff, Bell spaceship, rod in a barn, etc.) Yep, I take that. So by adopting this view, I contend, one MUST accept the universe as a 4D BU, where past, present and future all co-exist. No, it is not à la carte, as you suggest, @Dale . Your future is either there or it isn't...

I personally do not believe in God. This belief of mine shapes my fears about my death and the absence of afterlife, my attitude towards life, pleasures and values, my beliefs about a possible (or impossible) punishment for my doings, my understanding of the world and its "beauty".

When it comes to the 4D BU, to me it is an even more important issue.
Why does it frighten me so much?

There are many reasons, I'll just specify two of them.
1. In a BU all your future moments are set. Yours and everyone's. Maybe your best friend will die in a car crash a year from now after getting into a fight with you. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying that if it must happen it will. It is there, just there, a year from now. In a universe with an open future you may think "well, maybe I won't say those hurtful words to him an hour before the crash" or "maybe he won't get distracted thinking about our fight when driving" or "maybe he will need to check his car the day before and will thus take the bus on that day". But no, in a BU those are not options. In fact, whether any of my words will convince you is also predetermined. Every time you hesitate between making a 1 dollar donation at Walmart to round up your payment this is not a genuine hesitation. Your refusal (or not) to donate is a fact and your hesitation is of spurious origin and only seems to be linked to your decision in any way. And while all of these may happen anyway in an "open future" universe, they don't have to. They may or may not. In BU these facts are there and it is only your inability to get signals from the future that prevents you from seeing them.
2. One must commit to either perdurantism (worm theory) or exdurantism (stage theory) when adopting BU. A spacetime worm is a person with all his life moments glued together. If that is what we really are, why does our experience only reflect one moment (arbitrarily small, maybe infinitely small, I don't know)? Ok, let's throw away perdurantism. Then all we are is a set of stages. Many many many stages. Then how does individuality survive? There are gazillions of Danes, with nothing to glue them.
There are additional issues linked to causality or quantum objects and their temporal parts (see Pashby for the latter one).

But I hope you can understand what I profoundly dislike about the BU. And although I want to embrace SR from my entire heart, my fear of BU obliges me to look for alternatives.

 

[alexandrinushka]

Referring to post #3, thanks for your clarification. Historically Michelson Morley experiment expelled LET, I understand. The experiment suggests that the ether is at rest for every observer. How is it possible when two bodies with the observants have relative velocity ?

I am not sure I understand your question, sorry... I would let others, much more experienced posters, answer you.
As to the status of ether, made superfluous, by SR, I prefer to quote Einstein.
In his 1920 talk, Ether and the theory of relativity, Einstein has famously quipped:
Quote:

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H A Lorentz.

and later adds:

We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

 

[PAllen]

Anyway... Let's assume that BU follows from SR (If SR then BU). That implies embracing SR in its standard reading; light always travels with speed c (in any inertial frame) and all inertial frames are equivalent, Einstein's synchronization method is the only genuine one and there is no such thing as a superfluous absolute frame. I believe standard SR is not only elegant and beautiful, I believe it lacks any contradiction and is fully consistent with all modern experiments and can resolve any "paradox" (yeah, twin stuff, Bell spaceship, rod in a barn, etc.) Yep, I take that. So by adopting this view, I contend, one MUST accept the universe as a 4D BU, where past, present and future all co-exist. No, it is not à la carte, as you suggest, @Dale . Your future is either there or it isn't...

I

Let's not. For starters, the currently accepted theories of matter and energy consistent with SR are all variants of QFT which makes no sense with a BU interpretation (it is fundamentally non-deterministic). So, essentially all practicing physicists functioanlly reject the coupling argued by the philosophers you insist on believing.

"Einstein's synchronization method is the only genuine one" is utter nonsense as to the claim it is the only one. The universe does not care how or whether we synchronize clocks.

"there is no such thing as a superfluous absolute frame" is a statement of faith, similar to religion. There is no way to prove or disprove it, as a matter of principle.

You invent a quandary the simply does not exist. If you don't like BU, don't use it. Note that the Ellis of Hawking and Ellis "Large Scale Structure of spacetime" strenuously argues that QFT forbids the validity of BU. Most disagree with the "forbids" aspect of this, but the point is that one of greatest relativity theorists of the last 50 years totally rejects the BU interpretation.

 

[PeroK]

I contend, one MUST accept the universe as a 4D BU, where past, present and future all co-exist.

What does "co-exist" mean? Remember that time itself is part of the 4D manifold. Saying that "Earth 2025" exists "now" (in some coordinate sense) doesn't imply determinism. Partly, at least, because whether the laws of physics are deterministic depends on QM and not solely on coordinates in the spacetime manifold.

A choice of spacetime coordinates cannot dictate the laws of QM.

IMHO, this is just a game played by clever people who should know better. This reminds me of a bit in Ulysses, by James Joyce, where Stephen "proves by algebra that Hamlet's grandson is Shakespeare's grandfather."

I personally do not believe in God. This belief of mine shapes my fears about my death and the absence of afterlife, my attitude towards life, pleasures and values, my beliefs about a possible (or impossible) punishment for my doings, my understanding of the world and its "beauty".

When it comes to the 4D BU, to me it is an even more important issue.
Why does it frighten me so much?

There are many reasons, I'll just specify two of them.
1. In a BU all your future moments are set. Yours and everyone's. Maybe your best friend will die in a car crash a year from now after getting into a fight with you. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying that if it must happen it will. It is there, just there, a year from now. In a universe with an open future you may think "well, maybe I won't say those hurtful words to him an hour before the crash" or "maybe he won't get distracted thinking about our fight when driving" or "maybe he will need to check his car the day before and will thus take the bus on that day". But no, in a BU those are not options. In fact, whether any of my words will convince you is also predetermined. Every time you hesitate between making a 1 dollar donation at Walmart to round up your payment this is not a genuine hesitation. Your refusal (or not) to donate is a fact and your hesitation is of spurious origin and only seems to be linked to your decision in any way. And while all of these may happen anyway in an "open future" universe, they don't have to. They may or may not. In BU these facts are there and it is only your inability to get signals from the future that prevents you from seeing them.
2. One must commit to either perdurantism (worm theory) or exdurantism (stage theory) when adopting BU. A spacetime worm is a person with all his life moments glued together. If that is what we really are, why does our experience only reflect one moment (arbitrarily small, maybe infinitely small, I don't know)? Ok, let's throw away perdurantism. Then all we are is a set of stages. Many many many stages. Then how does individuality survive? There are gazillions of Danes, with nothing to glue them.
There are additional issues linked to causality or quantum objects and their temporal parts (see Pashby for the latter one).

But I hope you can understand what I profoundly dislike about the BU. And although I want to embrace SR from my entire heart, my fear of BU obliges me to look for alternatives.

This bears no relation to physics, which is about mathematical models that can predict the results of experiments. I don't know what this is, but it's not physics.

 

[alexandrinushka]

What does "co-exist" mean? Remember that time itself is part of the 4D manifold. Saying that "Earth 2025" exists "now" (in some coordinate sense) doesn't imply determinism. Partly, at least, because whether the laws of physics are deterministic depends on QM and not solely on coordinates in the spacetime manifold.
A choice of spacetime coordinates cannot dictate the laws of QM.

I frankly do not know what "co-exist" means in this context. Some eternal (since another name for BU is eternalism) sort of present for all events? If you just imagine time as a 4th spatial dimension and put all moments next to each other as frames from a movie it is easier to picture. But I admit it is not fully clear what that is, not even to me. So yeah, you are right in this regard.

This bears no relation to physics, which is about mathematical models that can predict the results of experiments. I don't know what this is, but it's not physics.

Fair enough, it is not Physics. I am sorry that my blabla bothered you. I felt compelled to answer to @Dale's question about what frightens me in the BU and I "spilled a lot of electronic ink" :) I don't think my discomfort with this idea is completely unfounded or unheard of. I can remove that part.

 

[Dale]

No, it is not à la carte, as you suggest, @Dale . Your future is either there or it isn't...

It absolutely is a la carte. That is the whole point of an interpretation.

Let's take a step back. A theory is a mathematical framework with a mapping from the math to experiment. This mapping from math to experiment is sometimes called the minimal interpretation. The framework together with the minimal interpretation is the minimum necessary for doing science. The minimal interpretation allows you to challenge the mathematical framework experimentally using the scientific method.

Now, it is possible to go beyond the original mathematical framework and make a whole new mathematical framework, perhaps even with its own minimal interpretation. If that new framework and new minimal interpretation make all of the same experimental predictions as the original, then it is called a reformulation of the original. They are not considered separate theories, and usually there is a clear mathematical way to derive one framework from the other. For example, Newton-Cartan gravity is a geometrical reformulation of Newtonian gravity wherein gravity is represented as spacetime curvature. This is not general relativity, it is Newtonian gravity, but it shares a lot of the math with general relativity. In particular, in standard Newtonian gravity gravity is a real force, but in the Newton-Cartan reformulation gravity is a fictitious force.

It is also possible to go beyond the original mapping from the math to experiment and include mappings from the math to other concepts, usually philosophical in nature. This is called an interpretation, meaning an interpretation beyond the minimal interpretation. An interpretation, by definition, cannot be queried experimentally because all of the mappings between the math and experiment are already contained in the minimal interpretation.

So, if we want to be consistent with how the world works, then what must we do? Ultimately, experiment is what we use to assess how consistent our concepts are with the world. Things that can be determined by experiment reflect some fact about the world itself and things that cannot (even in principle) be determined by experiment do not reflect some fact about the world itself.

Neither interpretations nor reformulations can be distinguished by experiment, even in principle. All reformulations of a theory and all interpretations of a theory agree on all experimental predictions. Thus neither interpretations nor reformulations reflect some fact about the world itself. They are only concepts in our mind, and as such, we can change our mind about them without coming into conflict with how the world works.

 

[alexandrinushka]

Let's not. For starters, the currently accepted theories of matter and energy consistent with SR are all variants of QFT which makes no sense with a BU interpretation (it is fundamentally non-deterministic). So, essentially all practicing physicists functioanlly reject the coupling argued by the philosophers you insist on believing.

"Einstein's synchronization method is the only genuine one" is utter nonsense as to the claim it is the only one. The universe does not care how or whether we synchronize clocks.
"there is no such thing as a superfluous absolute frame" is a statement of faith, similar to religion. There is no way to prove or disprove it, as a matter of principle.

You invent a quandary the simply does not exist. If you don't like BU, don't use it. Note that the Ellis of Hawking and Ellis "Large Scale Structure of spacetime" strenuously argues that QFT forbids the validity of BU. Most disagree with the "forbids" aspect of this, but the point is that one of greatest relativity theorists of the last 50 years totally rejects the BU interpretation.

Thanks a lot for your post, I will check your resources. I needed to hear that ^^

 

[alexandrinushka]

It absolutely is a la carte. That is the whole point of an interpretation.

Let's take a step back. A theory is a mathematical framework with a mapping from the math to experiment. This mapping from math to experiment is sometimes called the minimal interpretation. The framework together with the minimal interpretation is the minimum necessary for doing science. The minimal interpretation allows you to challenge the mathematical framework experimentally using the scientific method.

Now, it is possible to go beyond the original mathematical framework and make a whole new mathematical framework, perhaps even with its own minimal interpretation. If that new framework and new minimal interpretation make all of the same experimental predictions as the original, then it is called a reformulation of the original. They are not considered separate theories, and usually there is a clear mathematical way to derive one framework from the other. For example, Newton-Cartan gravity is a geometrical reformulation of Newtonian gravity wherein gravity is represented as spacetime curvature. This is not general relativity, it is Newtonian gravity, but it shares a lot of the math with general relativity. In particular, in standard Newtonian gravity gravity is a real force, but in the Newton-Cartan reformulation gravity is a fictitious force.

It is also possible to go beyond the original mapping from the math to experiment and include mappings from the math to other concepts, usually philosophical in nature. This is called an interpretation, meaning an interpretation beyond the minimal interpretation. An interpretation, by definition, cannot be queried experimentally because all of the mappings between the math and experiment are already contained in the minimal interpretation.

So, if we want to be consistent with how the world works, then what must we do? Ultimately, experiment is what we use to assess how consistent our concepts are with the world. Things that can be determined by experiment reflect some fact about the world itself and things that cannot (even in principle) be determined by experiment do not reflect some fact about the world itself.

Neither interpretations nor reformulations can be distinguished by experiment, even in principle. All reformulations of a theory and all interpretations of a theory agree on all experimental predictions. Thus neither interpretations nor reformulations reflect some fact about the world itself. They are only concepts in our mind, and as such, we can change our mind about them without coming into conflict with how the world works.

Thanks a lot for your message, @Dale . It really is helpful and I appreciate you taking time to bring this home to my mind.

 

[alexandrinushka]

Guys, I want to thank you for your patience and for bearing through my rambling, fears and pain points. I have learned a lot from this exchange, specifically that I should study a bit more Physics and keep a more open mind (not just jump to conclusions from minimal interpretations and feel like I have cracked the mystery of the entire universe with one theory).
I admit I have read more Metaphysics than Physics in my life (to a ratio of 100 to 1, I guess) and it is very easy to "get married" to an idea when it is vehemently sold by philosophers. Nothing against philosophers though. From my readings, I can tell most of them are brilliant and many have double PhDs in Math/Physics and Philosophy. But often they swear by something and then, a month later, another just as brilliant guy publishes an article about why the previous one was wrong. As so on and on and on. It is tiring at times. Probably the "shut up and calculate" attitude is a good one to adopt from times to times.

I understand how frustrating it may be to pass some ideas that are obvious to you to some newbie. I have been teaching myself (Russian, in my case) and at times I felt my student was not making an effort or refusing to understand on purpose. Usually it is not true.
Neither was I trying to argue just for the sake of it or from unwillingness to understand something. Most of the time I tend to admit an error as soon as I understand I have erred.

Anyway, this thread has been useful to me and I have definitely (alas, after some have been obliged to phrase the same thing in several different ways) learned a lot.
So thank you @Dale , @PeroK , @PAllen and @PeterDonis

This thread stays open, of course, but I have personally drawn the conclusions I needed from this exchange and do not intend to be especially active on it, unless pinged or mentioned.

 

[Dale]

Just one piece of advice. When I have a question about “reality” the first thing I do is sit down and figure out what sort of experiment could be done to answer the question.

If there is no such experiment then I am done, the question wasn’t a question about “reality” as I had mistakenly thought. Sometimes I try to figure out why it isn’t a question about “reality”, but usually I just don’t even bother with it.

If there is an experiment then I see if I can find a paper where that experiment has been done or at least analyzed fully. If I cannot find such a paper then I might try to analyze it myself, but generally such topics are beyond me. Those wind up being the most frustrating, but they are rare.

 

[anuttarasammyak]

I understand how frustrating it may be to pass some ideas that are obvious to you to some newbie. I have been teaching myself (Russian, in my case) and at times I felt my student was not making an effort or refusing to understand on purpose. Usually it is not true.

I would just mention here in my school days the originally Russian text on introduction of relativity theory by Landau and Zhukov enlighted me so much. I am still loving the latter part written by Zhukov for its plain and clear mathematics. I admire you can read it and other excellent works of Landau in original Russian.

 

[Rene Dekker]

I am late to the party, and won't comment on the good philosophical discussion, but like to comment on your original question. I have always found it easier to understand and accept length contraction, by viewing it as a rotation instead.

We are all familiar with normal rotations in 3D space, and don't think much about the effects that it has. Imagine a rod is lying some distance away on the its side, perpendicular to your viewing direction, such that you see the full length of the rod. If I now rotate the rod, then it appears to shrink in size to you. We normally don't think about it that way, because our brain compensates for that immediately. But if you would take photographs before and after the rotation, and compare those, then the rod appears to have shortened. After the rotation you would also see one of its short ends, and one end would be further away than the other.

Something similar happens with length contraction with a faster moving rod. It is kind of like a rotation in time. The rod appears shorter, you see one of its short ends, and one end would be "further away" in time than the other. If you look at the mathematics of it, then it is also more like a rotation than a contraction.

 

[vanhees71]

I think one has to distinguish two things:

(1) "length contraction" as a purely kinematical effect. Here the physical situation is that one has some solid body (e.g., a rod) that is at rest as a whole in some inertial frame. Then this rod has a well-defined "proper length", ##L_0##, given by the length as measured in this inertial rest frame. The important point is that "measuring the rod's length" means that an arbitrary observer reads off the spatial coordinates of the ends of the rod in a momentary inertial frame, where he or she is at rest and defines the length in the usual way using Euclidean geometry with the result that he get's the lengths in direction of boost contracted by the inverse Lorentz factor ##1/\gamma=\sqrt{1-\beta^2}## while lengths in direction perpendicular to the boost direction are unchanged in comparison to the proper lengths as defined in the restframe of the body.

(2) Deformation due to acceleration

This is more complicated, because it involves the dynamics and inner structure of the body you measure, and indeed there cannot be a rigid body. This becomes most clear when assuming a rigid body a la Born, which turns out to have only 3 degrees of freedom and admitting only a specific set of possible "rigid motions".

A famous example is the rotating disk. You can have a rotation of the disk around its center with constant angular velocity as a rigid motion, but it is not possible to bring such a "Born rigid disk" continuously from rest in an inertial frame in this rigid rotation. Of course, the resolution of this paradox is that there is no Born rigid disk in nature and in fact you can bring the disk into this state of rigid rotation, but the in fact elastic body must necessarily deform. A nice discussion about the "Ehrenfest paradox" concerning a rotating "rigid disk" can be found in Eddington, The mathematical theory of relativity, where he however also uses a specific simplified description of the disk as a "incompressible body", where he defines incompressibility locally.

 

[phyti]

alexandrinushka;

A metal rod can be measured, heated, and measured again, revealing a change in dimension, all occurring in a single ref. frame. Materials can be transformed via various processes, thus there are no 'rigid' objects. Changes in dimension and composition are a common part of physics.

Here is an example of physical length contraction.

 

[Nugatory]

Yet it does not seem to me one can employ the same reasoning when it comes to length.

If you have not already done so, you may want to spend some quality time with Bell's spaceship paradox - Google will work here. The observed physical phenomenon is that the string breaks, but only in one frame can we explain this as dynamical length contraction of the string.