Simultaneity

T   
here is a huge problem connected with the concept of simultaneity (in the relativistic sense). It's origin lies in misconceptions as old as the Michelson-Morley 'pseudo' experiment. It is unfortunate that so much water has gone under the bridge without anything said or corrected.

To that end ...

It will be conceeded by all that no activity of any sort is possible in the absence of some sort of reference frame. That is, there will be no deterministic action by matter.

The removal of the absolute reference frame by relativity (in response to the M&M debacle) has made it possible for otherwise responsible physicists to assert that there are logical problems associated with faster than light travel.

Though it is most certainly impossible to travel FTL, there are no logical problems qua simultaneity, i.e. if you were to go FTL you would not see events out of order in logically impossible configurations.

I believe some have got their light cones bent out of shape due to "overhoning" (if you take my meaning).
Thus, if you were to go from point A to point B at FTL speeds, you would simply arrive a B prior to the light coming from A. You would, in effect, "poof" into existence at point B. No problem here is there?

The unstated supposition here is that there is an absolute time associated with the universe upon which events rely in order that they might proceed in a rational manner and to which they might refer for quantitive guidance.

A universal clock.

There is such a clock and The Michelson-Morley "thing" does not negate it. (See Relativity if you have not done so already)

Now let us suppose that there is no such absolute clock (or absolute ruler for that matter). Then we might expect to encounter some logical problems with the aforementioned simultaneity.

The troubles proffered by the notable professors are those of quality bereft of quantitive measure. They are either/or troubles not a little/or alot. There are no gradations in the potential physical/logical "screwups".

Thus, the entire universe would be at the mercy of one FTL spacecraft. And this is very safe ground since no one is postulating that the deed is possible.

And yet those very same professors must grant that a "relative, non-absolute" frame is constructed by the rest of the relativistic universe and imposed on each and every object in proportion to its mass, i.e. the test mass and the rest of the universe compete with one another to establish a valid reference frame.

So on the one hand, FTL is verboten by the qualitive relationship of test mass to universe. And on the other hand, the relativistic reference frame, formed by the rest of the universe, approaches "absolute" (the one M&M were looking for) as the ratio between test mass and universe approaches infinity.

The logical error here I call:
The Weatherman Error
and more often
The Government Error

The essence of this logic is best understood by illustration.

Suppose you think that the weather is toooooo cold! and you want to heat it up. What to do?
Put your hand around your thermometer till the mercury goes up thus indicating a higher temperature.
Stupid? ... you bet (a weatherman wouldn't actually do this ... but politicians do albeit in different but analogous situations).

You see, the problem here is one of quantity. The thermometer reading is a function of the weather but the weather is not a function of the reading because the thermometer is not a big enough heat sink to generate weather effects. The process is not logically forbidden ... it is quantitively forbidden. Time reversal symmetry is much the same ... not logically but rather quantitively forbidden.

Hence, the Star Trek type "warp drive" doesn't generate logical problems. There are just physical speed limits and nothing to be done about it.

In fact though, FTL transmissions occur constantly as I indicated in another section. That speed limit is 1039c and exists because the universe is no larger than the smallest particle if one sees the universe from the "extension denial" viewpoint, i.e.

All effects of the universe that we can observe are immediately upon us - we don't see stars 100 light years away - we see light immediately upon the retina - get it? So you can say with equal validity that the universe is a plenum on the surface of a sphere of diminishing radius (collapsing on down to the surface of a single discrete particle). Hence, some transmission of information may occur to that surface and, contemplated from our normally perceived perspective, would entail a transit to the Hubble radius in the same time as to another particle right next to the source particle.
Now if you really want to make a galactic sub-space radio network you would have to convert your signal to this type FTL signal and then reconstitute it at the receiver. I speculate to the 9th degree affirmative that this is impossible.

And a warp drive is even more unlikely ... requiring that we disassemble a physical body, convert it to FTL what? ... then spontaneously reconstitute at some other point? ... presumably in total violation of linear momentum conservation ... hmmmmm like I said ... forget it. (That's the way the transporter would work too)


Actually, linear momentum conservation is a perfect indication of the presence of an absolute Newtonian reference. You can't move forward without throwing something out in the opposite direction to balance your movement. You cannot "push off" on the rest of the universe and move it back while you move forward (as would be possible in a purely relativistic framework).

Movement requires an actor, a reactor and a stage or nothing occurs. The stage is the absolute reference frame and the absolute character of momentum conservation and its tight association with other conservation laws makes it a dead certainty that such an absolute reference frame exists as a logical entity (even though we can't verify it experimentally).

And there is the HUGE error of modern physics ...

If it can't be experimentally verified ... it doesn't exist.

It does exist and is the context within which experiment occurs.
No absolutes = no experiments.
Asking an experiment to verify the absolute reference frame is asking experiment to analyze itself (qua experiment) ... or ...
Logic cannot be made to chase its own tail.

Concluding ...

Indeterminate time (and space) are actual, viable concepts but have meaning only on scales in the Compton wavelength range. In big sky country, all is deterministic and absolute by anyone's measure.

Events are simultaneous, prior or posterior absolutely at large time intervals (though not at the Compton scale). And no logical troubles are transferable up from that scale which might cause "cows to scream after we eat them".




Next Page


Ebtx Home Page