Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Bohm2]

My non-scientific intuition favors holistic metaphors where space-time (separability in general) is an emergent epiphenomenon of reality's dynamism.

I'm not sure what you mean here (holistic =contextual?) but the the Kochen-Specker theorem demonstrates the impossibility of any non-contextual hidden variable theory. So the combination of Bell's and Kochen-Specker theorem only allow for a certain class of hidden variable models: they must be non-local and contextual.

The Kochen-Specker Theorem
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/koche ... index.html

[MazerRackhem]

Firstly, Einstein treats time as one dimension, while space has three dimensions. But he said that time and space are similar. But if they are similar, why is it that one has three dimensions while the other has only one dimension. This is the first question where I question his idea.

1. Answer: The number of space and time dimensions are not arbitrary they are in response to rigorous mathematical analysis of carefully taken observations. Firstly there are not three space dimensions but rather 10 or 11 most of them wrapped up in Calabi-Yau spaces which appear 1 dimensional from far away. Think of a long straw, from a distance it looks like a 1 dimensional line, closer it is appears 2 dimensional, even closer we see it is three dimensional. The reason there is only 1 time dimension is also mathematical, with the number of time dimensions different than 1 the field equations of motion would not be hyperbolic and the dynamics would create an unstable universe. There is one time dimension in the theory because there is one in the universe, there is one in the universe because a 'two-'time' universe would be unstable.

Secondly, is his opposition of the quantumn mechanics. The experimental observation of the very large is very different to the experimental observation of the very small. Is this strange? Einstein opposed quantumn mechanics while he supports his idea, yet, experimental observation of the very small did carry out. Yet, Einstein did not come up with a theory to describe the things of the very small. This is another question.

Answer: 2. This is a common misconception. While Einstein was shocked and appalled at the results of Quantum Mechanics (most physicists were) and worked through the last years of his life trying to find a synthesis for the two theories he was not the enemy of QM that many people portray him as. Indeed he was the father of QM! It was his paper on the Photoelectric Effect (for which he won his Nobel prize) that spawned the quantum revolution. Einstein's work in quantum mechanics was well known and actually accepted by the physics community before his work in relativity. So Einstein is actually the father of the theory of the very small. That being said you would hardly doubt the theory of a biologist who came up with an explanation of the migration patterns of African animals because it did not explain the migration patterns of North American animals. The fact that Special and General relativity do not explain quantum phenomena is no reason for doubting them. Finally you mention that "experimental observation of the very small did carry out." It is worth noting that experimental evidence of General Relativity has 'carried out' just as well or better than QM, indeed GPS, the Mars missions, and a host of other common modern advances would have been impossible without it. Every time you use a GPS you are using a device built on the theory of General Relativity.

Thirdly, light must have a mass if it exists, this is why light can bend when it moves near a planet. The reason why light bends is because the external force influences light. If the external force can influence light, then, light must have a mass. If light has a mass, then, force equal mass times acceleration will apply to light.

Answer: 3. This is very far from the truth. It is at this point that it becomes clear you have misunderstood General Relativity as a theory. Light is bent by gravity but it most certainly does not have mass. It is in fact General Relativity which explains this phenomenon. Gravity does not act solely on objects which have mass as you suppose, but rather massive bodies create 'gravity wells' or bends in the fabric of space-time. Think of a bowling ball sitting on a rubber sheet. The light is bent by the massive body, not because the light has any mass, but because the space around the object is itself bent. Thus the 'straight path' for the light wave is actually curved around the object in exactly the same way a marble would follow a curved path around the bowling ball if you tried to roll it across the rubber sheet I described above. This is also why large bodies create time dilation effects, since not only space but time as well is warped by them.

So if light has a mass, light must change its speed as it hits an object. If the speed of light changes, then, Einstein's idea is no longer relevant, where there must be another new entity to record how the speed of light changes. And this new entity that records how the speed of light changes is time, the universal absolute time been constant.

Answer: 4. Light does not have mass though its speed is affected by the medium it travels in. I don't intend to be condescending but, you haven't read much physics if you are unaware that all the light you see about you is traveling less than THE speed of light 'c.' Light travels more slowly through a medium than in a vacuum, indeed it is possible for massive particles to travel faster than the speed of light IN A MEDIUM, let me be very very clear here, only IN A MEDIUM. When this happens, if the particles are charged they give off what is known as Cherenkov radiation which is the equivalent of a supersonic jet creating a sonic boom. It is the reason nuclear reactors glow blue. Although light absolutely does not have mass, it does have momentum (before you start screaming that momentum is p=mv and so light must have mass look up the actual equation for momentum, not the classical approximation p=mv) and light's momentum can change, this is how light is able to push objects although it absolutely does not have mass. The 'speed of light' is only a universal speed limit when we speak of the speed of light in a VACUUM.

And it is also this universal absolute constant time that records how individual time can flow backward to the past, or to any other direction. This is why both the absolute time and relative time can exist together.

So to me, absolute time depends on relative time and relative time depends on absolute time. If absolute time exists, then, relative time must exist. If there is relative time, then, there is absolute time. It is impossible to have relative time without an absolute time. It is impossible to have an absolute time without relative time.

Answer: 5. Again I am really not trying to be condescending in the least (these are difficult concepts to grasp at first glance). The above sentences are nonsensical. First time does not flow into the past, look up 'Time's Arrow' and it is very unclear what you mean by a secondary 'relative time,' as it can be understood in context the idea you are suggesting either 'relative time' or 'absolute time' does not exist. Without a further explanation of what you mean here I cannot say which of the concepts you have developed is the false one.

And there are many relative times, such as the time in Tokyo, the time of New York, the time of India, the time of UK, the time in Mars, so and so on: All of these are relative times. While absolute time is an entity that records all the relative times.

Answer: 6. These times are not relative in the way that you suggest. You are equating different Time Zones with different relative times. Time Zones are simply a way to express the same part of the solar cycle as being at the same 'time of day' in each local. We could just as easily adopt a universal Time Zone for everywhere (China for instance has only 1 time zone despite being large enough for at least 3). This would mean that while it is the same o'clock everywhere what you think of in terms of the sun when a person says 4 o'clock pm will vary based on your location. Einstein has shown that time itself as experienced by an observer is relative. However, it is relative to the speed at which two inertial observers move relative to each other. It is not relative for observers in Hong Kong vs. London since both of these cities are in the same inertial frame (earth). The problem with the sentence you've written above is that you've taken 'time' to mean two different things. You speak of it both as the o'clock time (which is just a convention) and of it as the dimension in space-time. In philosophy, as in math and physics, one must be careful to define one's terms and not use the same word to mean two different things. When this caution is not observed absurdities result.

Regarding to the questions that Einstein did not answer, such as his failure to describe the experimental observation of the very small, I will say that because the experimental observation of the very large is very different to the observation of the very small, then, different universes must have different laws to describe why the observation of the very large is different to the very small.

Answer: 7. See answer 2.

If you feel there are different laws, then, the differences in observation of the very large and the very small will no longer contradict one another.

Finally, time must have more than one dimension, if time is the same as space, otherwise time is no longer similar to space if one has one dimension while the other has three dimension. To me, both time and space have infinite numbers of dimensions, which I had said before.

Answer: 8 As previously stated time cannot have more than one dimension, the dynamics would be unstable and you would not be here reading this. This is not an opinion, it has been shown mathematically. Einstein never said time was the same as space, it is quite different than space and in many more respects than dimensionality alone. What Einstein said was that time and space are not separate entities as was previously thought, rather they are a combined entity called space-time. This took both time and space out of the absolute universal backdrop of the universe a showed that they are actually integral players in physics, not just the stage on which physics happens.

I'm not certain where you've gotten your information about relativity hereto date but if you let me know your background I may be able to recommend some good books that would help you learn more about these topics.

[A Poster He or I]

Bohm 2 said,

I'm not sure what you mean here (holistic =contextual?) but the the Kochen-Specker theorem demonstrates the impossibility of any non-contextual hidden variable theory. So the combination of Bell's and Kochen-Specker theorem only allow for a certain class of hidden variable models: they must be non-local and contextual.

Again as a non-realist, I don't believe in non-contextuality anyway. All observation, measurement or determination of any sort is context-dependent. So a non-contextual hidden variable theory is impossible not just because of Bell or Kochen-Specker but because ANY and EVERY theory advanced from any given epistemological framework is conceptually and operationally contextual.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with holism per se when you ask whether I mean holism = contextual. Contextuality is a concomitant of our cognitive sense of separability. Holism is merely a way of conceptual modelling to productively illuminate relationships in ways that reductionism doesn't.

[Bohm2]

Again as a non-realist, I don't believe in non-contextuality anyway. All observation, measurement or determination of any sort is context-dependent. So a non-contextual hidden variable theory is impossible not just because of Bell or Kochen-Specker but because ANY and EVERY theory advanced from any given epistemological framework is conceptually and operationally contextual.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with holism per se when you ask whether I mean holism = contextual. Contextuality is a concomitant of our cognitive sense of separability. Holism is merely a way of conceptual modelling to productively illuminate relationships in ways that reductionism doesn't.

Two things. The issue of "realism" as used in philosophy is not the same thing as in physics. And the term causes a lot of confusion as argued by Norsen here:

The context in which I am against the use of the word ‘realism’ is: Bell’s Theorem, the EPR argument, Aspect’s and other empirical tests of Bell’s inequalities, and surrounding issues. The reason I am against the word ‘realism’ is twofold: first, it is almost never clear what exactly a given user means by the term, i.e., which of several possible (and very different) senses of ‘realism’ is being referred to; and second, the point that will occupy us for most of the present paper, none of these possibly-meant senses of ‘realism’ turn out to have the kind of relevance that the users seem to think they have.

Against ‘Realism’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0607057v2.pdf

And the same with "non-contextuality". Classical mechanics is considered non-contextual as is defined in physics: a system possesses a property (value of an observable) independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured. Again, you might mean something different. And Bohmian mechanics does have a non-contextual part (e.g. position). Everything else is contextual. And it is a perfectly acceptable model that is consistent with QM.

-- Updated March 19th, 2013, 1:18 pm to add the following --

Answer: The number of space and time dimensions are not arbitrary they are in response to rigorous mathematical analysis of carefully taken observations. Firstly there are not three space dimensions but rather 10 or 11 most of them wrapped up in Calabi-Yau spaces which appear 1 dimensional from far away.

String/Superstring theory (e.g. 'M-theory’)is not GR. String theory is one of many models attempting to unify QM with GR:

Though attempts have been made, there has been no successful formulation of this theory: its very existence, much less its nature, is still largely a matter of conjecture.

Quantum Gravity
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/#3.1

[A Poster He or I]

The issue of "realism" as used in philosophy is not the same thing as in physics. And the term causes a lot of confusion as argued by Norsen...

If physics has any agreed-upon definition for realism, it exists only among philosophers of science. In the research lab, the science of physics doesn't operate or depend on any such definition.

And the same with "non-contextuality". Classical mechanics is considered non-contextual as is defined in physics: a system possesses a property (value of an observable) independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured. Again, you might mean something different.

A physics-centric definition of non-contextual (namely the value-independence of a term in a mathematical expression from any contingency upon other terms) is consistent with how I meant non-contextual in a philosophical sense: independent of observation and interpretation.

...And Bohmian mechanics does have a non-contextual part (e.g. position). Everything else is contextual. And it is a perfectly acceptable model that is consistent with QM.

If Kochen-Specker says any viable hidden-variable theory must be contextual while Bohmian mechanics includes a non-contextual component, doesn't that imply in principle that Bohmian mechanics cannot possibly be a viable theory?

(I might also point out that calling Bohmian mechanics a "perfectly acceptable model" ignores the testability requirements commonly associated with good scientific theorizing. But hey, if M theory can get away with it, why not Bohm...)

[Xris]

MazerRacklem, how do we know gravity bends empty space without observing the supposed bending of light. What other observations make us conclude that large bodies warp space?

[Bohm2]

If Kochen-Specker says any viable hidden-variable theory must be contextual while Bohmian mechanics includes a non-contextual component, doesn't that imply in principle that Bohmian mechanics cannot possibly be a viable theory?

No, for the following reasons:

One of the basic ideas of Bohmian Mechanics is that position is the only basic observable to which all other observables of orthodox QM can be reduced. So, Bohmian Mechanics will qualify VD (value definiteness) as follows: “Not all observables defined in orthodox QM for a physical system are defined in Bohmian Mechanics, but those that are (i.e. only position) do have definite values at all times.” Both this modification of VD (value definiteness) and the rejection of NC (noncontextuality) immediately immunize Bohmian Mechanics against any no HV argument from the Kochen Specker Theorem.

So, while the KS theorem establishes a contradiction between VD + NC and QM, the qualification above immunizes Bohmian mechanics from contradiction.

I might also point out that calling Bohmian mechanics a "perfectly acceptable model" ignores the testability requirements commonly associated with good scientific theorizing. But hey, if M theory can get away with it, why not Bohm...

Nonequilibruim Bohmian mechanics can be considered an alternative theory to QM . But its hopes lie in finding such nonequilibrium violations of QM in cosmic microwave background, etc. Should such violations be discovered that would be evidence for Bohmian mechanics as a new post-quantum theory; however, without any such discovery Bohmiam would just be an interpretation like many of the others:

Should inflation be very firmly established, and should it be found that the predictions of quantum theory continue to hold well at all accessible lengthscales during the inflationary era, then this would constitute considerable evidence against the hypothesis of quantum nonequilibrium at the big bang (though of course, nonequilibrium from an earlier era might simply have not survived into the inflationary phase). Furthermore, it would rather undermine the view that quantum theory is merely an effective description of an equilibrium state. In principle, one could still believe that hidden variables exist, and that the hidden variables distribution is restricted to quantum equilibrium even at the shortest distances and earliest times. But in the complete absence of nonequilibrium, the detailed behaviour of the hidden variables (such as the precise form of the trajectories in de Broglie-Bohm theory) would be forever untestable. While exact equilibrium always and everywhere may constitute a logically possible world, from a general scientific point of view it seems unacceptable, and the complete ruling out of quantum nonequilibrium by experiment would suggest that hidden-variables theories should be abandoned. On the other hand, a positive detection of quantum nonequilibrium phenomena in the early universe (or indeed elsewhere) would be of fundamental interest, opening up a new and deeper level of nature to experimental investigation.

Inflationary Cosmology as a Probe of Primordial Quantum Mechanics
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0805.0163.pdf

GRW is also falsifiable as it makes slightly different predictions than QM. Thus, GRW can be considered an alternative theory not just an interpretation, because it is theoretically testable.

[MazerRackhem]

MazerRacklem, how do we know gravity bends empty space without observing the supposed bending of light. What other observations make us conclude that large bodies warp space?

Well 1st it isn't 'the supposed bending of light'; It is the bending of light. Light being bent by gravitation has been observed and was one of the first experimentally verified pieces of evidence for GR. It has since been observed and verified thousands of times, measured down to extraordinary degrees of accuracy and never once found to deviate in even the tinniest way from the predictions of Special and General Relativity. Secondly we could take the fact that anyone's GPS works at all as a pretty good indication. Without General Relativity a GPS couldn't be more accurate than a few kilometers, current consumer models can be accurate down to the meter.

GPS systems use an algorithm based on the measurement of the receiver's position relative to at least 4 orbital satellites and take into account the fact that:

1. The clock's on moving platforms tick slower than those on stationary platforms (SR)

2. The curvature of space-time due to the earth's mass is less at higher altitudes (GR)

3. The clock's on platforms tick at different rates based on the curvature of the space-time in which they sit. (GR)

So, Special Relativity tells us that, since the satellites are moving relative to the receivers the satellite clocks will tick slower at a precise rate (they lose about 7 microseconds a day), but since they are high above the earth where space is curved less than on the surface they will tick faster than clocks at the bottom of the gravity well (satellite clocks thus gain about 45 microseconds a day, a net gain of 38 microseconds). The algorithm also takes into account the fact that the signal travels along a curved path through space-time as it goes from satellite to receiver due to the curvature of space-time caused by the earth's mass. As a result of this a 'simple' unit can measure position, velocity, and acceleration down into the meter domain, a commercial version can measure it down into the millimeter range.

If General Relativity were not true everyone's GPS would be horribly wrong. This is just one of the many many observations which make us conclude that massive bodies warp space-time just as General Relativity predicts. In addition to this it is possible to make very precise measurements of the curvature of space using laboratory grade gyroscopes, this has been done both terrestrially and in space.

[Xris]

Sorry but you said gravity was bending space not light.Either space is warping or light is. You can not make the assumption that light is bent by the effect of gravity.If you do you have to explain how a mass less particle is experimentally or theoretically shown to be effected by gravity. You are making an assumption from a concept.How can an empty space with nothing in it be said to warp? It's totally illogical. Secondly space is not shown to be effected by increased gravity. Events slow with increased gravity. Mass slows down atomic activity it does not infer that space has been effected.Your GPS is simply influenced by the strength of gravity.

[MazerRackhem]

Sorry but you said gravity was bending space not light.Either space is warping or light is. You can not make the assumption that light is bent by the effect of gravity.If you do you have to explain how a mass less [sic] particle is experimentally or theoretically shown to be effected by gravity. You are making an assumption from a concept.How can an empty space with nothing in it be said to warp? It's totally illogical. Secondly space is not shown to be effected by increased gravity. Events slow with increased gravity. Mass slows down atomic activity it does not infer that space has been effected.Your GPS is simply influenced by the strength of gravity.

Well as a last ditch effort:

1. Yes, I said gravity is bending space not light, I never said light was warping.The light travels a curved path because space is curved. This is well known and understood.

2. I am making no assumptions at all from any concepts, everything I talked about is completely empirical and has been observed and verified thousands of times.

3. It is in no way illogical for 'empty space' to be warped, to suggest as much indicates you've misunderstood the lesson of relativistic mechanics.

4. We are not 'inferring' that space is warped, we are measuring the warping of space. So yes, space is most definitely shown to be effected by increased gravity.

5. Finally "Your GPS is simply influenced by the strength of gravity" yes, of course it is! It is being influenced by the warping of space and time caused by gravity. Saying it is 'simply influenced by' and neglecting all of the intervening steps is not a proof of anything. It is just as illogical as saying that an ill person is vomiting, not because billions of tiny microorganisms have invaded their body and are causing chemical reactions inside them, but because "they're sick." Saying that the GPS is affected by gravity is certainly true, what I have done above is explain HOW gravity affects the GPS and how this interaction is a powerful demonstration of General Relativity.

-- Updated March 19th, 2013, 7:14 pm to add the following --

String/Superstring theory (e.g. 'M-theory’)is not GR. String theory is one of many models attempting to unify QM with GR:

This is certainly true, however the point was not that General Relativity requires 11 dimensions but that the number of spacial and temporal dimensions is not arbitrarily determined but rather a consequence of empirical observations and mathematical analysis. The point was to demonstrate that the single time dimension was not an arbitrary assumption but a consequence of in depth theory crafting.

[Xris]

You or science are not proving anything by simply stating your beliefs. I know what science is claiming. I asked how do you know space is warped and how can you warp something that is apparently nothing? What observations give you the right to say space is warped. Secondly how can science claim space is warped because gravity directly effects matter. I can never understand how unrelated analogies are given. Someone may be sick for a hundred different reasons. Light may be bending for other reasons than claiming space is warped.Debate is not about regurgitating accepted science.

[Bohm2]

You or science are not proving anything by simply stating your beliefs. I know what science is claiming.

Science isn't about proofs/proving. Scientists model experimental stuff using appropriate mathematical equations. The equations allow us to make successful predictions of unparalleled precision. "Success" means predictive success (e.g. the theories makes predictions that are borne out by experimental and observational tests), so that our most up-dated scientific theories enable us to make significantly more correct predictions than we could make without them or with previous theories. Of course, there are always philosophical or interpretative problems with trying to conceptualize what the math/equations mean but it's clear that the classical picture you seem to be subscribing to (e.g. "contact mechanics") cannot deliver the goods.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)

Science isn't about proofs/proving. Scientists model experimental stuff using appropriate mathematical equations. The equations allow us to make successful predictions of unparalleled precision. "Success" means predictive success (e.g. the theories makes predictions that are borne out by experimental and observational tests), so that our most up-dated scientific theories enable us to make significantly more correct predictions than we could make without them or with previous theories. Of course, there are always philosophical or interpretative problems with trying to conceptualize what the math/equations mean but it's clear that the classical picture you seem to be subscribing to (e.g. "contact mechanics") cannot deliver the goods.

I subscribe to nothing. I do my damndest to stay non dogmatic even though it appears the opposite. You can predict the position of Africa even if you believe the world is flat.The classical picture of the mechanical universe has not been destroyed it has been infected with ill conceived concepts that are built on a series of assumptions.What came first? The idea that space was curved or that light curved because space was curved? Science goes round and round in circles like a cat chasing its tail.Then when someone notices gravity influences the rate of change it becomes proof that an empty space in the sky is bent by the effects of gravity. Sorry but no amount of mathematical invention will convince me this is logical. Relativity should be used as guide not as certainty. We are finding more and more evidence experimentally and observationally that our well founded beliefs are not that secure.

[MazerRackhem]

As I said in another thread Xris, you can ignore all of the facts and observations you want, you can throw out all of the theories and say that nothing is ever proven, but that just leaves you with radical skepticism. That's a fine place to be if you want to go there but it is impossible to have a conversation about Scientific Philosophy if you're answer to every piece of evidence I give you is simply: 'I don't believe that proves anything because I don't accept that it's possible to know anything using math and science.' You have said many times in your posts here and elsewhere that you will not accept any mathematical proofs or scientific observations as evidence of anything.

That is fine if you want to go that route but you are wasting the time of the people who really do want to engage in meaningful discourse about scientific theories. You are welcome to discount anything you like, but you can't pass it off as though that constitutes a meaningful critique of the theory. So far you have answered every explanation with a blanket denial of basic science and have offer no alternative positions based on, well frankly, anything at all. As I said elsewhere future comments would be better suited to an epistemology or meta-physics forum. We can all have discourse on whatever topics we like and a formal education in science is not necessary (though it is certainly helpful) for a discussion of Scientific Philosophy, however acceptance that the basic methods of empirical observation and logic (math) are at least more or less reliable in creating testable theories and hypothesis is. If you deny either of these two axioms your discussion belongs in epistemology, not Scientific Philosophy, and certainly not in a thread about the merits and short comings of Einstein's theories.

[Xris]

As I said in another thread Xris, you can ignore all of the facts and observations you want, you can throw out all of the theories and say that nothing is ever proven, but that just leaves you with radical skepticism. That's a fine place to be if you want to go there but it is impossible to have a conversation about Scientific Philosophy if you're answer to every piece of evidence I give you is simply: 'I don't believe that proves anything because I don't accept that it's possible to know anything using math and science.' You have said many times in your posts here and elsewhere that you will not accept any mathematical proofs or scientific observations as evidence of anything.

That is fine if you want to go that route but you are wasting the time of the people who really do want to engage in meaningful discourse about scientific theories. You are welcome to discount anything you like, but you can't pass it off as though that constitutes a meaningful critique of the theory. So far you have answered every explanation with a blanket denial of basic science and have offer no alternative positions based on, well frankly, anything at all. As I said elsewhere future comments would be better suited to an epistemology or meta-physics forum. We can all have discourse on whatever topics we like and a formal education in science is not necessary (though it is certainly helpful) for a discussion of Scientific Philosophy, however acceptance that the basic methods of empirical observation and logic (math) are at least more or less reliable in creating testable theories and hypothesis is. If you deny either of these two axioms your discussion belongs in epistemology, not Scientific Philosophy, and certainly not in a thread about the merits and short comings of Einstein's theories.

But you fail to understand that my questions are not questioning the observations nor the principles to which the maths apply. Observations can prove anything you like if you want them to.Maths can equally secure the most outrageous claims. I am questioning the concepts that created the conclusions. Are you really telling me that light is seen to be bending for no other reason other than space is bent by the effects of gravity? I asked you what other observations gives you the right to say space is curved by the effects of gravity or is that too much to ask? It's not a metaphysical question nor is it condemning the scientific method.