Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #656870

Re: What is "present time" in physics?

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 09/06/2024 08:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On 09/06/2024 05:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >> On 09/06/2024 02:58 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/05/2024 09:40 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 09/04/2024 08:10 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The problem of relativity is the understanding of the notion of
> >>>>>>>> present
> >>>>>>>> time, that is to say the notion of simultaneity (which should
> >>>>>>>> not be
> >>>>>>>> confused with the notion of chronotropy).
> >>>>>>>> Is there on the planet Fomalhaut IV, a princess Alexandra who lives
> >>>>>>>> there, at the same time as me; me who is here on earth?
> >>>>>>>> That is to say in the same present moment?
> >>>>>>>> It must be said that yes, since whatever procedure of universal
> >>>>>>>> synchronization I adopt, whether mine or that of Albert Einstein,
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> is necessarily a LABEL, and only one, to characterize the
> >>>>>>>> existence of
> >>>>>>>> Alexandra simultaneous with mine.
> >>>>>>>> But according to the method of "synchronization of present
> >>>>>>>> time", we
> >>>>>>>> will not have the same label.
> >>>>>>>> Einstein uses procedure M, Hachel procedure H.
> >>>>>>>> Procedure M is the most practical, procedure H is the most true.
> >>>>>>>> Procedure M is the most practical, because it derives from the
> >>>>>>>> synchronization of the present time on a point M placed very far
> >>>>>>>> away in
> >>>>>>>> an imaginary fourth dimension, and at an equal distance from all
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> points constituting our universe. This gives an abstract
> >>>>>>>> universal time,
> >>>>>>>> but very useful, where the notion of universal present time is
> >>>>>>>> flat, and
> >>>>>>>> reciprocal. If A exists at the same time as B for M, then B
> >>>>>>>> exists at
> >>>>>>>> the same time as A for M. It is very practical.
> >>>>>>>> Procedure H proposed by Richard Hachel is less practical, but
> >>>>>>>> truer. It
> >>>>>>>> is less practical, because the notion of symmetry of the present
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> will not be absolute. But it is truer, physically more accurate,
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> more beautiful. It will remain eternally true experimentally, and
> >>>>>>>> eternally more beautiful philosophically. What could be more
> >>>>>>>> beautiful
> >>>>>>>> than saying to a child: "This horse in this meadow, this moon in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> sky, this galaxy in this telescope, you see them instantly, as
> >>>>>>>> they are
> >>>>>>>> today, live-live".
> >>>>>>>> What is uglier than human thought, which thinks it is intelligent,
> >>>>>>>> even though it is full of stupid mockery, conceptual imbecilities,
> >>>>>>>> simply because it can say, as all morons say: "The speed of light
> >>>>>>>> is c,
> >>>>>>>> we know it, we have measured it, experimented with it, and we get
> >>>>>>>> 3.10^8m/s".
> >>>>>>>> This is the most stupid reflection in the history of humanity,
> >>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>>> by mocking morons (Python, John Baez) who think they are funny and
> >>>>>>>> intelligent, authorized mockers, but who have not understood
> >>>>>>>> anything
> >>>>>>>> about the notion of universal anisochrony and the two possible
> >>>>>>>> ways in
> >>>>>>>> which we can (or even MUST be able to) synchronize the clocks of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The (physical) space-time is a (mathematical) coordinate space, and
> >>>>>>> the (physical) Space-Time is the continuous manifold of the field
> >>>>>>> number
> >>>>>>> formalism of QM combined with the inertial-systems'
> >>>>>>> differential-system GR, where according to Einstein the GR is
> >>>>>>> a differential-system parameterized by a "the time", and in
> >>>>>>> QM the time-reversibility has never been falsified, with the
> >>>>>>> time-ordering of the path-integral being pretty much classical,
> >>>>>>> a "clock hypothesis" is not un-usual, that with respect to a
> >>>>>>> coordinate space, yet there's only a forward-pointing ray of time,
> >>>>>>> between zero and one a vector field over the entirety of Space-Time,
> >>>>>>> that in deep space in absolute vacuum at absolute zero equals one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clocks either slow or meet, ....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That "there are no closed time-like curves" and "time reversibility
> >>>>>>> has never been falsified" then as with regards to null geodesics
> >>>>>>> and any usual ideas about using the time-like as simply an extra
> >>>>>>> "Fourth Dimension" for only mathematical extrapolation, has that
> >>>>>>> physically it might as well just be considered "the gradient" as
> >>>>>>> with regards to "t" everywhere universally parameterizing the
> >>>>>>> differential-system and time-ordering of GR and QM.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This sort of theory can for example reduce functional freedom
> >>>>>>> from 10^120 to approximately 1, while that "time dilation plus
> >>>>>>> length contraction equals space contraction" is simply enough
> >>>>>>> as of the FitzGeraldian and associated considerations of the
> >>>>>>> Heaviside and Larmour with respect to Lorentz, while in QM
> >>>>>>> there are both low-energy and high-energy supersymmetry, as
> >>>>>>> whether "virtual" particles are just another model of continuum
> >>>>>>> dynamics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I.e., all one theory, all one manifold, all one t.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The d'Espagnat on a model philosopher's model physicist's
> >>>>>>> model philosophy's model physics, "objective realism",
> >>>>>>> with Broglie-Bohm and Aspect-like extra-locality, as
> >>>>>>> with regards to "anti-realist model physics", helps
> >>>>>>> explore then why making for a clock hypothesis and
> >>>>>>> a "the time" as Einstein does in "Out of My Later Years",
> >>>>>>> why curved space-time is just a model in the Cartesian
> >>>>>>> for "space contraction" then that though its consideration
> >>>>>>> as a "Fourth Dimension" asks a bit much of a simple numerical
> >>>>>>> resource of a mathematical/physical continuum, continuous
> >>>>>>> manifold.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What time is now?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now here or now, or here and now??? where? here? now? is it here now?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The question nobody wants to ask is..Where is Now? and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> where is Here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is Here and Now the same place or are they two different places?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Do you know who ...?"   "Yeah"
> >>>
> >>> I know it's Now everywhere, but is Here and Now Here or is Here
> >>> everywhere, or over there or
> >>>
> >>> Here, There.. Everywhere?
> >>>
> >>> What time is it Here, and what time is it over there, is Here here? Is
> >>> there here?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The idea of space contraction is still "Lorentzian" while it must
> >> still explain both length contraction and time dilation, which get
> >> arrived at according to both cosmological constant and L-principle
> >> and mass-energy equivalency, according to light-speed being the
> >> metered propagation of information, that the propagation of information
> >> is free, while metered, in terms of these establishing any reason
> >> why there's not otherwise just plain universal-time, at all.
> >>
> >> The idea is that there's FitzGerald, sitting next to Heaviside and
> >> Faraday and Larmour, a bit separately from Maxwell, yet as well all
> >> involved in E&M and the fields of potential, among a sort of tetrad
> >> of quantities, like electron/proton neutron/photon, charge/mass
> >> rest/motion and these kinds of things, in sum-of-histories
> >> sum-of-potentials.
> >>
> >> FitzGerald makes for a different Lorentzian than Maxwell and Einstein
> >> respectively, who make Lorentzians, as with regards to dx+dy+dz, -dt,
> >> and ds with regards to the metric, or for the Laplacian so related,
> >> dx^2+dy^2+dx^2, -dy, squared, and ds, squared, and that being zero.
> >>
> >> This way, what results is that the linear is Galilean again,
> >> and, the rotational, is free and independent itself, while
> >> yet both are Lorentzian, so that space-contraction, means
> >> nothing to objects in their orbits moving linearly, and
> >> makes for clock-slowing for objects moving circularly in
> >> their orbits.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, you don't have to care what time it is and can assume it's
> >> the same everywhere, except with regards to coming and going
> >> from quite distinct orbits and trajectories, that basically
> >> appear mostly classical while when they meet and part can show
> >> that the object having entered and left a free rotational slowed
> >> then met and demonstrates space contraction centrally and inwardly,
> >> while the object in linear motion plain departed and exhibits
> >> space-contraction in its own space-frame and space-frame?
> >>
> >>
> >> Or, you care, then can have what looks like a continuous space-time
> >> manifold again be re-attaching a FitzGeraldian (and Galilean) while
> >> still Lorentzian interpretation, for linear motion and kinetics,
> >> and rotational motion and kinematics, distinctly.
> >>
> >>
> >> When you look into Larmour forces then Faraday then Compton effect
> >> and so on, this is sort of the super-classical and non-linear which
> >> is sort of what theoretical physicists need to equip their model
> >> philosophy with if they'd care to get past the usual plain fluid
> >> model of electricity, which while correct and all "classically",
> >> ends up not sufficing more "thoroughly".
> >>
> >> For example, look into the 20 or more other lettered fields
> >> of electrical and electromagnetic potential besides B, D, and E,
> >> since at least the fin de siecle or Heaviside who have us the
> >> telegrapher's equation, Faraday, and Larmour. Then FitzGerald
> >> is for your space contraction, while of course other usual sorts
> >> of Lorentzians like Maxwell's and Einstein's have their own bits,
> >> as related to various particulars, in the dynamics.
> >>
> >> I.e. if you give Lorentzians then the rest of Relativity Theory
> >> has nothing else to say about it, at all.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Larmor, rather.
> >
> > "Quasilinear theory of Brillouin resonances
> > in rotating magnetized plasmas"
> >
> >
> > "It is, however, shown that the Landau and cyclotron resonance
> > conditions which classically describe resonant energy–momentum exchange
> > between waves and particles are no longer valid in a rotating magnetized
> > plasma column. In this case a new resonance
> > condition which involves a resonant matching between the wave frequency,
> > the cyclotron frequency modified by inertial effects and the harmonics
> > of the guiding centre rotation is identified."
> > -- Rax, Guerolt, Fisch
> >
> > Nienhuis appears to have an industry in "Faraday rotation".
> >
> >
> > "Brillouin" and "resonance theory" for that matter is
> > sort of usual when wave mechanics just won't do.
> >
> > "... the first successful application of rotating non-neutral plasmas
> > was the magnetron microwave source theorized by Brillouin (1945)."
> >
> >
> > "While quasilinear radial transport has been studied
> > within the framework of non-neutral plasmas confinement deploying a
> > so-called ‘rotating wall technique’ (Eggleston & O’Neil 1999; Kiwamoto,
> > Soga & Aoki 2005), these studies were restricted to electrostatic modes.
> > Finite Larmor radius effects were also neglected
> > as an infinite magnetic field was assumed. Lastly, although inertial
> > effects are central to equilibria in Brillouin configurations, these
> > studies neglected inertial effects so that the resonance condition is
> > limited to the axial Doppler-shifted resonance between the plasma
> > rotation and the wave frequency. These restrictions are removed in the
> > present paper."
> >
> > "Brillouin modes ...".
> >
> > "In summary, the first term on the right-hand side of (8.8) corresponds
> > to a change of the moment of inertia of the particle as a result of the
> > quasilinear radial drift and Larmor radius evolution."
> >
> >
> > Of course you can read this for yourself and make of it what it is.
> >
> >
> > "Although angular momentum exchange between a wave and a rotating plasma
> > is of importance both to astrophysics (Goldreich & Julian 1969; Julian
> > 1973; Ferrière 2006) and laboratory plasmas (Kostyukov et al. 2002;
> > Shvets, Fisch & Rax 2002; Thaury et al. 2013), a kinetic model of this
> > interaction had to our knowledge never been proposed."
> >
> >
> > "Appendix A. The SAM and OAM of a vector field Consider a wave field
> > A(r) exp jωt. The identification of (i) linear momentum, (ii) SAM
> > and (iii) OAM eigenstates can be guided by the analysis of the
> > transformation properties of the wave under translations and rotations."
> >
> > "The next step is to consider a Fourier decomposition of the O(V)
> > oscillating Vlasov terms."
> >
> > Refers to a GARETZ , B.A. 1981 Angular Doppler effect. J. Opt. Soc. Am.
> > 71 (5), 609
> >
> >
> > GOUGH , W. 1986 The angular momentum of radiation. Eur. J. Phys. 7 (2),
> > 81–87.
> >
> > RAX , J.M. 1992 Compton harmonic resonances, stochastic instabilities,
> > quasilinear diffusion, and collisionless damping with
> > ultra-high-intensity laser waves. Phys. Fluids B 4 (12), 3962–3972.
> >
> > RAX , J.-M. & GUEROULT , R. 2021 Faraday–Fresnel rotation and splitting
> > of orbital angular momentum carrying waves in a rotating plasma. J.
> > Plasma Phys. 87 (5), 905870507.
> >
> > ("... we use the usual rule <Re[a(u)]Re[b(u)]>_u
> > = Re[a(u)b^∗(u)]/2 ...".)
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasov_equation
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_connection
> >
> > Reintroduces "parallel transport", even "teleparallelism".
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_transport
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
> >
> >
> > Anyways you just come up with Lorentzians for
> > the propagation equations and that's Relativity.
> >
> >
> > Right about now
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> "In classical electrodynamics, problems are typically divided into two
> classes:
> 
> Problems in which the charge and current sources of fields are specified
> and the fields are calculated, and
> 
> The reverse situation, problems in which the fields are specified and
> the motion of particles are calculated."
> 
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%E2%80%93Lorentz_force#Background
> 
> "The reason for this is twofold:
> 
> Neglect of the "self-fields" usually leads to answers that are accurate
> enough for many applications, and
> Inclusion of self-fields leads to problems in physics such as
> renormalization, some of which are still unsolved, that relate to the
> very nature of matter and energy.
> 
> These conceptual problems created by self-fields are highlighted in a
> standard graduate text. [Jackson]
> 
> The difficulties presented by this problem touch one of the most
> fundamental aspects of physics, the nature of the elementary particle.
> Although partial solutions, workable within limited areas, can be given,
> the basic problem remains unsolved. One might hope that the transition
> from classical to quantum-mechanical treatments would remove the
> difficulties. While there is still hope that this may eventually occur,
> the present quantum-mechanical discussions are beset with even more
> elaborate troubles than the classical ones. It is one of the triumphs of
> comparatively recent years (~ 1948–1950) that the concepts of Lorentz
> covariance and gauge invariance were exploited sufficiently cleverly to
> circumvent these difficulties in quantum electrodynamics and so allow
> the calculation of very small radiative effects to extremely high
> precision, in full agreement with experiment. From a fundamental point
> of view, however, the difficulties remain. "
> 
> Or, "QED is sort of a propitious lie".
> 
> Anyways for _classical_ motion and "zero-eth laws" of motion,
> then getting into things like "the infinitely-many higher orders
> of acceleration, which are formally non-zero", helps reflect
> for example that while Born's "Restless Universe" has nowhere
> that v = 0, at the same time it results that nowhere are any
> of the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration zero!
> What results in changes that Born is both contradicted and
> in the Mach-ian confirmed!
> 
> (This is usually enough that "the potential fields are the
> real fields" and "it's, sum-of-histories, and, sum-of-potentials".)
> 
> You know why renormalization is such a problem for physics?
> Because "normalization" is really "de-normalization".
> 
> So, for space-contraction and the linear and rotational being
> different at all, makes for that it's simple that Lorentzians
> are given, and it's a gauge theory, and that objects moving
> linearly are, ..., "mostly space" and carry their space-frames
> and frame-spaces with them, while, objects moving rotationally
> are both free and focal as it were, with space-contraction on
> the in-side.
> 
> All this "abstract physics", absent even a notion of the
> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration all formally
> non-zero while each yet vanishing, has that mathematics _owes_
> physics why this is so so that philosophers and physicists like
> d'Espagnat can equip model philosopher's model physicists' like
> Einstein's with enough mental apparatus of the true super-classical
> to arrive at the true centrifugal and fulfill things like
> "the zero-eth laws of motion", which are slightly yet only
> so much more so involved than otherwise the first few.
> 
> According to Einstein in "Out of My Later Years",
> the "present time" is what is called "the time",
> and usually pronounced "thee" to indicate that
> moreso than trivial, it's proper, the definite article.


The "present time" in einstein's mind is 'what time is it there?'


The NOW time is the time it is ...Now.

Since Now is everywhere...'"What time it it now?" can also mean, not
here, there but everywhere.


What time is it Everywhere, Now?


Not, 'what time do you have?' since you means there.


What time is it Everywhere, Now?


Your 'clocks' do not apply.

Because you all have the wrong time...now.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

What is "present time" in physics?  Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2024-09-04 15:10 +0000
  Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-04 10:10 -0700
    Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-04 22:46 -0700
      Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-05 09:40 -0700
        Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-05 12:44 -0700
          Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-06 14:58 -0700
            Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-06 17:07 -0700
              Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-06 20:53 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 09:51 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-07 10:05 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-09-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-07 10:53 -0700
                Re: What is "present time" in physics? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-08 12:04 -0700

csiph-web