Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: What is "present time" in physics? Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:34:39 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 416 Message-ID: <66DC8EAF.380E@ix.netcom.com> References: <66D945A2.176@ix.netcom.com> <66D9DF1B.4160@ix.netcom.com> <66DB7AEF.47A@ix.netcom.com> <1h-cnXsDJJoUGUH7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 19:34:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88d62eae53646f11fe08ea99cdf4d3f4"; logging-data="1529245"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7YFCNTCIg4a0xKn2QInQBYUCRT9OPOTE=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:07KyfRuM4T4wP4XJUY4CQ9OpSVA= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240907-4, 09/07/2024), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:656873 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. Eisnein's "present time" refers to here or there time, not everywhere time. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.