The Theory of Relativity

[agrippa1]

So is it your position that there are no absolutes?

No. My position is that, traveling in approximately the same relativistic frame as we are, our reality is identical (to within our ability to measure).

To claim that reality is different for different frames of reference is a claim limited to the scope of relativistic properties, that is, frames traveling at extreme velocity differences. These differences do not exist in our perceivable reality, so the claim is more theoretical than practical (although it does have some practical applications, such as correction of GPS time sources). It does not translate to other aspects of nature, or to philosophy. When Einstein said "everything is relative," he was speaking in the context of space, time and velocity, properties which, it turns out, every thing in reality has.

The mistake was when laymen heard the statement applied to "everything" and made the leap that "everything" might apply to every property of every thing, and that the statement of fact from a respected scientist was an affirmation of Subjectivism. This is an artifact of man's natural tendency to apply principles from one area of knowledge to others. While not a bad thing to do in general - a lot of great ideas and inventions have sprung from this tendency - applying principles out of context is, I believe, a major contributor to "floating abstractions." Unless the mind is disciplined enough to trace the logical consequences of the abstract down to the concrete, it will be left with all manner of (literally) crazy ideas. Subjectivism, in the form of the general political/social assertion "everything is relative" is one of them.

The corollary mistake is to reject Einstein's claim of Relativity, because it does not agree generally with you philosophical beliefs about Subjectivism.

It's a similar mistake to assume that because Einstein was a genius in the area of physics, that he must have a genius in economics as well. In fact, he was horrible in economics, proponing socialism even as half of his homeland smoldered from its experiment with German socialism, and the other half was being devoured by Russian socialism.

[Capitalism Forever]

No. My position is that, traveling in approximately the same relativistic frame as we are, our reality is identical (to within our ability to measure).

To claim that reality is different for different frames of reference is a claim limited to the scope of relativistic properties, that is, frames traveling at extreme velocity differences.

But it is still a philosophically unsound claim to make. There is only one reality; you do not jump into a different reality when you accelerate. You may shrink and your clocks may slow down, and you may be unable to detect this because everything around you has also shrunk and slowed down, but this does not prove Euclid wrong or mean that reality is different for you and me.

There are equations and there are interpretations. Lorentz had the equations; Einstein gave them an interpretation. The equations are right; the interpretation is wrong.

[agrippa1]

You may shrink and your clocks may slow down, and you may be unable to detect this because everything around you has also shrunk and slowed down, but this does not ... mean that reality is different for you and me.

So, my minute is not the same as your minute, my meter is not the same as your meter, my gram is not the same as your gram, my colors are not the same as your colors, but our realities are not different?

Can you define "different?"

[Tensorman]

There are equations and there are interpretations. Lorentz had the equations; Einstein gave them an interpretation. The equations are right; the interpretation is wrong.

What is wrong in Einstein's interpretation?

[Capitalism Forever]

our realities

There is only

1 (ONE)

reality. This is an axiom in Objectivism.

[Capitalism Forever]

What is wrong in Einstein's interpretation?

Its implicit philosophy, which can be summed up as: the abandonment of the primacy of existence.

Physics is the study of nature--but what is nature? To someone with an Aristotelian metaphysics, nature is metaphysically given reality. To Kant, nature was the sum of our perceptions of phenomena, distinct from any "things in themselves." Einstein's interpretation represents the shift in physics from the Aristotelian metaphysics of Enlightenment science to Kantian primacy of consciousness.

[agrippa1]

There is only

1 (ONE)

reality. This is an axiom in Objectivism.

Ouch.

If you trace back to the post this was responding to, you'll notice that you state: "... but this does not prove Euclid wrong or mean that reality is different for you and me."

"Our realities" refers directly to the apparent fact that reality, to me, is different from reality, to you, if we are in different relativistic frames of reference; as you apparently conceded when you stated "You may shrink and your clocks may slow down, and you may be unable to detect this because everything around you has also shrunk and slowed down..."

I didn't intend to suggest that there is not one reality that presents itself differently, depending on your relativistic frame of reference; in fact the consistency of those differences implies a single reality as source for all observations. However, since your frame of reference can't be determined, neither can the "absolute" (zero velocity) frame of reference of reality. Our view of things is different from what someone in another frame perceives.

So, again, how do you define "different," given that length, time and mass are all different for us, but "reality" is not? Or maybe: How do you define "reality?"

[Tensorman]

Its implicit philosophy, which can be summed up as: the abandonment of the primacy of existence.

Physics is the study of nature--but what is nature? To someone with an Aristotelian metaphysics, nature is metaphysically given reality. To Kant, nature was the sum of our perceptions of phenomena, distinct from any "things in themselves." Einstein's interpretation represents the shift in physics from the Aristotelian metaphysics of Enlightenment science to Kantian primacy of consciousness.

Can you be a bit more explicit? In what way does Einstein's interpretation deny the notion of a metaphysically given reality?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Relativity between two different frames of reference does not give two different realities, there is only one reality but it is viewed and experienced from two different perspectives.

To give an example of this, if a train blows it's horn while moving past a station, the passengers will hear one continuous tone, but someone on the platform will hear a rising tone and then a falling tone as the train moves past. Which one is the real reality? Well, they both are -- that is they are both hearing sounds that are really made. The passengers hears a continuous pitch, which is a real event; and the relative motion gives a changing pitch, which is a real event. The explanation for why there is a difference is the relative motion between the platform observer and the moving train whistle.

Similarly, there are real events that are observed to be different due to relative motion using light, but we don't encounter in every day life because we usually do not witness relative motions of near the speed of light.

What is philosophically wrong with the way the Theory of Relativity is presented is the notion that space and time are somehow warped due to relative motion. Space and time are not entities that can be warped, they don't exist as things. What exists are entities and their motions -- time as a measure of motion -- rather than space and time.

So, though the equations work in that they give good calculated results, I think it is more an issue of a problem of measurement for things moving at relativistic speeds. The equations are needed to adjust from one frame of reference to another, which give different specific results, but events that happen in one frame do happen in the other frame, it's just that they don't coordinate the same from one measuring system to the other.

For example, going back to the magnet example I gave earlier, if one is stationary relative to a magnet, one detects only a magnetic field; but if one is moving relative to a magnet, one detects a magnetic field and an electric field. Where did that field come from? Well, it came from the magnetic field changing in the frame of reference of the observer moving in relation to the magnet.

Now, there is a further big question in physics, and that is are magnetic fields and electric fields fundamentals? I don't think they are, I think they come about due to something more fundamental, but that is another topic. However, modern scientists don't seem to want to breach that topic, and they also don't want to breach the topic of gravity as a fundamental, which I don't think it is either. The problem is that once some scientists have an equation that works, they are no longer worried so much about the physical reality; which is a modern change with regard to physics taking up the Kantian approach of our knowledge not having much to do with real reality. They just dispense with those issues, which is bad philosophy.

[Capitalism Forever]

I didn't intend to suggest that there is not one reality that presents itself differently, depending on your relativistic frame of reference; in fact the consistency of those differences implies a single reality as source for all observations.

Exactly.

However, since your frame of reference can't be determined, neither can the "absolute" (zero velocity) frame of reference of reality.

It cannot, within our present context of knowledge. But the rejection of an ether on such a basis is precisely the example Ayn Rand used when she cautioned against "arbitrarily restrict[ing] the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge." (See ITOE Expanded Second Edition, Appendix, Philosophy of Science, Scientific Methodology, pp. 301-303.)

Our view of things is different from what someone in another frame perceives.

Our view of things has always been known to be different. If I look at a skyscraper from its bottom and you look at it from an airplane, it will appear very different to you than to me, but that is no reason to reject the existence of the skyscraper and only think of "views of the skyscraper from different vantage points" as actual existents. This is exactly the philosophical error that the Theory of Relativity commits.

So, again, how do you define "different," given that length, time and mass are all different for us, but "reality" is not?

When I heat water where I live now, it will start boiling when its temperature reaches 212 degrees. But my uncle in Colorado (if I had one) could perform the same experiment and measure the boiling point of water to be 208 degrees. Does that mean that "his degree is different from mine" ? If he calibrated his thermometer according to his measurement, he would measure everything to be a bit colder than I do.--These are facts of reality so far, whose relationship can be expressed in certain equations. If you asked a physicist what those equations mean, he could either give a consistent and fully integrated account of entities such as the atmosphere, the water, and the thermometer, and their properties and actions--or say that the difference in measurement is because there is no absolute reality, there are only frames of reference, that things that are one temperature for you are a different temperature for your uncle, and possibly even claim that your uncle could be wearing a winter coat when seen from one frame of reference but a t-shirt when seen from another one. Which of these interpretations do you think is good philosophy?

[Capitalism Forever]

Can you be a bit more explicit? In what way does Einstein's interpretation deny the notion of a metaphysically given reality?

See my response to agrippa1 above.

[agrippa1]

It cannot, within our present context of knowledge. But the rejection of an ether on such a basis is precisely the example Ayn Rand used when she cautioned against "arbitrarily restrict[ing] the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge." (See ITOE Expanded Second Edition, Appendix, Philosophy of Science, Scientific Methodology, pp. 301-303.)

Ahh, a contradiction, although I'm not sure how this relates to what I'm saying. Rand was decrying Einstein's claim that because he could explain physical behavior without invoking an ether, that an ether didn't exist. In fact, I believe he said that an ether is superfluous, which is a little different. The concept of the ether was an attempt to solve a problem, but when the problem was actually solved completely, it was recognized that the ether concept was not needed. Since no scientific observation supported the existence of the ether, isn't it in line with Objectivist epistemology to conclude that an ether does not exist? Rand fell here into the trap of clinging to a floating abstraction, which had no basis in perceptual reality. Her example was flawed, but her principle (of not equating a predictive model with reality) was correct.

Our view of things has always been known to be different. If I look at a skyscraper from its bottom and you look at it from an airplane, it will appear very different to you than to me, but that is no reason to reject the existence of the skyscraper and only think of "views of the skyscraper from different vantage points" as actual existents. This is exactly the philosophical error that the Theory of Relativity commits.

Our views of the skyscraper can be reconciled through simple geometry and an understanding of perspective and its effects on the observer's perception. Relativity requires that different relativistic frames change the nature of several attributes of reality, including simultaneity, length and mass (or more properly, momentum). It's not exactly the same as the skyscraper because to us, the skyscraper's height is identical, it's lights flash simultaneously (for instance), and it weighs the same.

When I heat water where I live now, it will start boiling when its temperature reaches 212 degrees. But my uncle in Colorado (if I had one) could perform the same experiment and measure the boiling point of water to be 208 degrees. Does that mean that "his degree is different from mine" ? If he calibrated his thermometer according to his measurement, he would measure everything to be a bit colder than I do.--These are facts of reality so far, whose relationship can be expressed in certain equations. If you asked a physicist what those equations mean, he could either give a consistent and fully integrated account of entities such as the atmosphere, the water, and the thermometer, and their properties and actions--or say that the difference in measurement is because there is no absolute reality, there are only frames of reference, that things that are one temperature for you are a different temperature for your uncle, and possibly even claim that your uncle could be wearing a winter coat when seen from one frame of reference but a t-shirt when seen from another one. Which of these interpretations do you think is good philosophy?

The problem with your example is you're talking about two different pots of water in two different contexts, not the same pot of water as viewed from two reference frames. The example of the t-shirt and the winter coat is a little closer to the mark. According to relativity, from your uncle's reference (assume he's going real fast) he's wearing a t-shirt, but from your reference he's wearing something that weighs as much as a winter coat.

But you seem to be evading my original question: If mass, length and time of an object are different depending on your frame of reference, isn't the object itself different? In other words, how do you define reality, if not in terms of mass, length and time? (and a few others, but they don't seem to play here)

Edited March 21, 2008 by agrippa1

[agrippa1]

Can you be a bit more explicit? In what way does Einstein's interpretation deny the notion of a metaphysically given reality?

I don't think Relativity denies the notion of a metaphysically given reality, it simply denies that we can perceive reality with absolute certainty. If you think about it, though, reality within any given reference, regardless of its velocity, is the same. Clocks run at the same speed, your pen doesn't weigh as much as a bowling ball, and your basketball doesn't go flat on you. It's only when you try to observe a different frame that weird things seem to happen. In essence, Relativity boils down to uncertainty about a single property, that is, our absolute velocity with respect to a universal rest state, or probably more properly, it denies the concept of "rest" except in terms of a given frame of reference. This isn't as big a deal as it may seem to the Objectivist, since the true nature of reality, according to Einstein, is given by observing it in your own frame of reference.

Edited March 21, 2008 by agrippa1

[Capitalism Forever]

If mass, length and time of an object are different depending on your frame of reference, isn't the object itself different?

The object definitely isn't different. The same object cannot be different; the concepts "same" and "different" have opposite meanings. It is your measurements that are different. And how can that be? One obvious answer is that your tools of measurement are different. Apparently, a moving ruler is shorter than a stationary ruler; that is why a moving object seems to be shorter when measured with a stationary ruler than with a moving ruler.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The object definitely isn't different. The same object cannot be different; the concepts "same" and "different" have opposite meanings. It is your measurements that are different.

This is one of the differences between the aether theory and the theory of relativity. In the aether theory, things shrunk due to the effect of the aether on them, in relativity the effect occurs due to relative motion (not with respect to the aether). There are even other theories to go along with the mathematics and actual measurements.

At this point in time, we can say that the effects definitely occur -- that is the mathematics seem to be sound -- but explaining the effects is what real science is all about. Newton made a big step in coming up with equations to specify gravitational attraction, but he could not identify the cause (i.e. what was going on in between things of mass that led to gravity). We are in a similar state now, with Einstein et al coming up with a whole host of equations that seem to be predictive, but no one has identified the cause of relativistic effects.

Is actual shrinking occurring just because two things move past one another, even though they each measure the other as having shrunk? Is it a real effect or just an aspect of measuring (especially using light as the measuring tool)? We have to use those equations to get the right physical measurement of things moving relative to one another, but is the other object actually changed? Who is shrinking is they are both moving relative to one another?

These kinds of questions really bug modern scientists, who would rather play with their equations and not take a first-hand look at reality.

I tend to think they are real effects, just as the train and magnet examples I gave, but on a different scale.

[Tensorman]

But you seem to be evading my original question: If mass, length and time of an object are different depending on your frame of reference, isn't the object itself different? In other words, how do you define reality, if not in terms of mass, length and time? (and a few others, but they don't seem to play here)

That time is different in moving systems and that this is not just some kind of "optical illusion" is proved by the fact that there is a measurable time lag that persists even if the frames are no longer moving with regard to each other. When someone is traveling through space with a speed that is close to the speed of light and comes back on Earth after say 10 years in his own time (he has physically aged 10 years) he may find that his son who remained on Earth is (physically) older than himself. Now this human experiment may be far beyond our current technology, but the effect does exist and has been demonstrated experimentally. How can you explain that with an aether theory? And for that matter, how does an aether theory explain the equivalence between mass and energy, the famous E = mc^2 equation?

[stuzal atla creala iuday]

I don't get how a genius like Einstein could've had such bad metaphysics and philosophical views when his physics, for the most part, completely affirm objectivist thought.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

How can you explain that with an aether theory? And for that matter, how does an aether theory explain the equivalence between mass and energy, the famous E = mc^2 equation?

Well, I haven't worked out all of the details, but if matter is held together by waves, like the Schroedinger wave equation depicts real waves of something, then at least some of the effects might be due to a kind of Doplerized Schroedinger wave; but I don't think anybody has come up with an equation like that, yet.

Also, if one goes back to Newton's original conception of mass as resistance to change of motion, rather than mass as quantity of matter, then one could say that mass increases (greater resistance to change of motion) because the aether must adjust as things move, and at some point, it just can't "get out of the way" or change rapidly enough, so the effect is a greater mass (in the direction of travel).

But, again, no one seems interested in coming up with a physical explanation of why a changing magnetic field is detected as an electric field; let alone trying to figure out what is in between things and what its properties are. There is no nothing; reality is a full plenum, it is packed with something, there is no nil in actual reality, not even empty space that has no fields in it. What is that something and what are its properties? I refer to it as the aether for lack of a better word, but whoever discovers it will be free to name it whatever he wants.

[poignant1]

... and yet, this is not a contradiction. My teacher explained this as a proof of space being a relative concept of location between objects. How does this differ from primacy of conciousness or any other idea of subjectivism?

Because the seemingly bizarre aberrations predicted under relativity can be measured just as well by machines as by humans. Don't let their persistent use of the term "observer" lead to a misconception about the concrete nature of relativistic skewing.

There might seem to be mind-boggling variances at issue concerning length, mass, simultaneity and such; but the overall scenario is one of luscious placid stability. Beings that reside on very distant galaxies get to enjoy the very same normalcy that we do: where light travels predictably and uniformly in all directions, illuminating every slightest movement of anything that budges. Nothing can outrun light. Nothing can slam into you before you have the opportunity to see it coming, in other words. Not very objective maybe, but so very very just.

[brian0918]

Its implicit philosophy, which can be summed up as: the abandonment of the primacy of existence.

Physics is the study of nature--but what is nature? To someone with an Aristotelian metaphysics, nature is metaphysically given reality. To Kant, nature was the sum of our perceptions of phenomena, distinct from any "things in themselves." Einstein's interpretation represents the shift in physics from the Aristotelian metaphysics of Enlightenment science to Kantian primacy of consciousness.

I believe you are misinterpreting the results of Einstein's work. With the pre-SR understanding, if people had been able to travel close to the speed of light, they would have observed phenomena that would lead them to believe that there are multiple contradictory realities. One guy would measure a length and look at his clock, and get a different result from someone else. But what Einstein showed were that space and time are inseparable parts of one whole - spacetime - which is absolute. Imagine a graph with the x-axis as space and the y-axis as time. We are all plotting out our own course on this graph. Two stationary individuals standing next to eachother will plot out two vertical lines on that graph - they are moving through time but not space. Now if one of them starts running, their line will have a slope to it (ie, the line contains a space component), while the other person's line will remain vertical.

In short, the larger the time component of your motion, the smaller the space component, and vice versa.

Lorentz transformations are simply a way of converting the length and period measurements of the first person to those of the second person, given that the speed of light is the same for everyone. An excellent page explaining how this is done step-by-step is available here.

So rather than split reality into a bunch sub-realities, what Einstein has done is to unite all of our apparent realities (given the limits of our sensory perception) to a common reality. I have my measurements, and you have yours; these measurements are limited by our senses, and they can be connected to eachother through some equations.

Edited April 10, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Well, I haven't worked out all of the details, but if matter is held together by waves, like the Schroedinger wave equation depicts real waves of something, then at least some of the effects might be due to a kind of Doplerized Schroedinger wave; but I don't think anybody has come up with an equation like that, yet.

Because it is nonsense - simple linguistic trickery. The Doppler effect is the observed change in frequency (and thus wavelength) of a moving oscillation (also referred to as a "wave"). The term is used in astronomy to refer to from an object having an increased/decreased frequency depending on whether the object is moving towards or away from the observer (redshift/blueshift).

A Schroedinger wave function is related to the probability of finding a particle at a given location when observing at a given time. The reason it is a "wave" is simply because there is a specific probability assigned to every point in space. At some points the probability is higher/lower than at others, so when drawn out, it will look squiggly like "waves" we are more familiar with.

The reason I am going into all this detail is to try to show how you are able to take two terms ("Doppler" and "Schroedinger wave") and throw them next to eachother, and give it a convincing appearance of being scientific while at the same time it is entirely nonsensical. A Schroedinger wave function represents a probability distribution. A light wave is an observed oscillation of the electric and magnetic field, moving over a distance - a self-propagating electromagnetic vibration. They both use the same word "wave", but that is as far as the similarity goes.

Edited April 10, 2008 by brian0918

[poignant1]

I believe you are misinterpreting the results of Einstein's work.

...

In short, the larger the time component of your motion, the smaller the space component, and vice versa.

Now look who's misinterpreting Einstein's work.

[brian0918]

Now look who's misinterpreting Einstein's work.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. "Space component" and "time component" mean nothing more than what is meant by "x-component" and "y-component" of a line.

Edited April 10, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Correction to my space/time diagram explanation:

Imagine a graph with the x-axis as space and the y-axis as time... Two stationary individuals standing next to eachother will plot out two horizontal lines on that graph - they are moving through time but not space. Now if one of them starts running, his line will have a slope to it (ie, the line contains a space component), while the other person's line will remain horizontal.

Edited April 10, 2008 by brian0918

[poignant1]

Don't worry Brian, you're still cool with me. Your spacetime diagram thing was dandy, to be sure! It's nit-picking perhaps, but this thing you implied about relativity somehow dictating maximums for your time-x-space product, or your time+space sum. Um, that seemed a gross departure from correct interpretation. Maybe I misunderstood your intent.