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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #656873

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.


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.

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