Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The extraordinary consequences of Einstein’s universe

#1
C C Offline
https://iai.tv/articles/the-extraordinar..._auid=2020

INTRO: Most people have heard that Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity revolutionized our understanding of time. But most people still aren’t aware of quite how profound the consequences of Einstein’s block universe are, according to which our experience of the present as uniquely different from the past or the future, the very idea of time having a direction, of “passing”, is put into question, argues Michael Silberstein.   

EXCERPTS: If you explore YouTube, you will find hundreds of videos and recorded lectures that assert “time is an illusion” given Einstein’s relativity. But is this true? And what exactly do these people mean by “time” and “illusion”? Because these words have multiple meanings, we must ask.

My goal here is to help the reader understand in exactly what sense Einstein (or anyone else) might justifiably assert that time is an illusion based on relativity. In so doing, I argue that there are essential features of our temporal experience, such as the passage of time, presence, and direction, that cannot be fully explained in the block universe picture given to us by relativity—our best physical theory of time. And whilst these essential features of time are not themselves illusory, there is a mystery about the status in which relativity theory leaves them.

[...] In a recent piece, Tim Maudlin grants that spacetime is a block world as I have defined it, but he does not think it warrants the word “illusion.” In his own words, “when it comes to the question of whether time is real or illusory, there is no way in which it [Minkowski spacetime] essentially differs from Newtonian physics.” Some philosophers go further and suggest that there is no discernable difference at all between the Presentism of Newtonian mechanics and the Eternalism of Einstein’s spacetime.

We have already seen that such claims are false. Just think of time-dilation and length-contraction in relativity, wherein we learn that the elapsed time between events and the length of objects are frame-dependent. Regarding the very same events and objects, there will be observers on various reference frames who will disagree about these properties, and both will be right! This highly counter-intuitive state of affairs could not happen in Newton’s world. I would say all of this constitutes a pretty significant difference, and we are not done yet.

You might ask, since Maudlin and I do not disagree about the facts thus far, only whether to call this state of affairs an “illusion”, do we disagree about anything else? Yes. I think that the block universe of spacetime lacks PPD, and Maudlin does not. I will explain my position first and then reply to his.

So, why does the block universe of spacetime lack Presence, Passage, and Direction in a way that Newton’s model does not? As Maudlin himself notes, the Newtonian model assumes absolute/objective simultaneity relations and that time is “the succession of the global instants” from past to future. Unsurprisingly then, Newton’s physical model of time grounded in everyday experience is often associated with or interpreted in terms of Presentism... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Is this guy just trying to milk some sort of woo from a theory he doesn't even understand the basics of? I think he is.
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Jan 10, 2023 11:45 PM)confused2 Wrote: Is this guy just trying to milk some sort of woo from a theory he doesn't even understand the basics of? I think he is.

In the end, Silberstein seems to roundaboutly be responding to Tim Maudlin's article, though not in the context of outrage stirred by a completely philistine act: https://iai.tv/articles/tim-maudlin-eins...-auid-2317

Maudlin's piece has received two comments at the bottom (since it's the older one). 

The first, from Xinhang Shen, assures us all that "special relativity is wrong and so are all relativistic spacetime based physics theories are wrong".

The second comment is from Matthew Huddleston, who apparently teaches physics at someplace called Trevecca Nazarene University:

"First he [Maudlin] writes, 'There is no *objective now* in the sense of some moment of time that all tokens of *now* refer to. But so what? Nobody ever thought differently.' Lots of people have thought differently! Lee Smolin, for example, has spent the last few decades trying to convince other physicists that "now" has a unique quality to it that may unlock future discoveries into a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics. [...]"

In the course of Huddleston pointing out how even notable physicists wrangle or disagree with each other about these issues (albeit hardly a revelation), I'm inclined to give Xinhang Shen's assessment more credence than I initially did -- though purely for practical purposes.

In that Einstein's work being "wrong" would make the noise quarreling as pointless as how many enchanted apples a trio of elves can pick from Mother Hawk's charmed orchard in eight hours, that's guarded by a wyvern.
Reply
#4
Kornee Offline
An Einsteinian static 4D block universe has to logically be uncaused and infinite, which conflicts with sensible modern cosmological models.
Crystalizing/growing block universe is at least potentially not in conflict with the mainstream position of inherent indeterminism of quantum physics.
Reply
#5
confused2 Offline
If anybody wants me I'll be outside feeding the rabbits.
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(Jan 11, 2023 06:07 AM)Kornee Wrote: An Einsteinian static 4D block universe has to logically be uncaused and infinite, which conflicts with sensible modern cosmological models.
Crystalizing/growing block universe is at least potentially not in conflict with the mainstream position of inherent indeterminism of quantum physics.

Yah, GBU or "possibilism" is the view which Sean Carroll attributes to Lee Smolin (though I'm not sure the latter himself has ever officially identified with it). 

And just as presentism and eternalism contrast with each other, even GBU has a lesser known counterpart called the "shrinking block".

Whereas presentism's figurative lust for destruction is satisfied by merely eradicating each of its short-lived replacement "nows", SBU incrementally gorges on an ever dwindling stockpile of [future] existence. 

https://iep.utm.edu/fut-cont/#H3

EXCERPT: "A third conception that is purportedly opposite to the growing block theory is the shrinking block theory. According to this theory, which is not widely accepted (though see, for example, Casati and Torrengo 2011), present and future entities exist, but past entities do not exist. We exist, future children exist, but Ceasar does not exist. Reality is what is left, so to say, and the future is constantly eroded as time passes."
Reply
#7
C C Offline
(Jan 10, 2023 11:45 PM)confused2 Wrote: Is this guy just trying to milk some sort of woo from a theory he doesn't even understand the basics of? I think he is.

A broader conception of what Silberstein's and Maudlin's (actually lightweight) interplay and many similar could perhaps be subsumed by:

Just as there are 16+ rival interpretations of what QM "means" outside its abstract description and predictive ability (i.e., pertaining to actual existence behind appearances and technical representations on paperwork), so are there multiple portrayals of time.

Two potential differences, however, are that (1) the time stuff doesn't solely spring from and revolve around a single theory. Relativity is merely one abducted victim brought to the pagan sacrificial table, though there's still going to be a coven of physicists and philosophers of science who wonder what particularly it ontologically corresponds to.

The other difference is that "time" (or change at the very least) is a feature of everyday experience rather than (or just) the normally unseen realm of the tiny. As a result, the lords and ladies of the aristocratic expert class may be drawn to squabbling over it more than the QM interpretations, due to the immediate familiarity. Or perhaps instead this is a rarer occurrence than fisticuffs over QM interpretations, and thereby the onlooking crowd of spectators experiences more perplexity as to what the bloody, unfolding street-gang drama stems from, or how it could concern THAT.
Reply
#8
Kornee Offline
(Jan 11, 2023 05:56 PM)C C Wrote: Yah, GBU or "possibilism" is the view which Sean Carroll attributes to Lee Smolin (though I'm not sure the latter himself has ever officially identified with it). 

And just as presentism and eternalism contrast with each other, even GBU has a lesser known counterpart called the "shrinking block".

Whereas presentism's figurative lust for destruction is satisfied by merely eradicating each of its short-lived replacement "nows", SBU incrementally gorges on an ever dwindling stockpile of [future] existence. 

https://iep.utm.edu/fut-cont/#H3

EXCERPT: "A third conception that is purportedly opposite to the growing block theory is the shrinking block theory. According to this theory, which is not widely accepted (though see, for example, Casati and Torrengo 2011), present and future entities exist, but past entities do not exist. We exist, future children exist, but Ceasar does not exist. Reality is what is left, so to say, and the future is constantly eroded as time passes."
SBU! Wow. A case of needing to break new ground? And yet the documentary series Doctor Who has surely put paid to that one. Oops - it has put paid to GBU too. Oh dear, looks like Albert was right all along. Hang on, Eternalism doesn't admit alternate 'blocks' that the good Doctor & Co's meddlings implies. Or does it? This musing is taking up too much - time. Big Grin
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article There is no free will in Einstein's universe C C 1 89 Jun 6, 2023 09:56 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article The 'afterlife' according to Einstein’s special relativity (Sabine Hossenfelder) C C 1 56 May 12, 2023 02:00 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Article Einstein’s most famous quote is totally misunderstood C C 2 104 Apr 15, 2023 07:37 AM
Last Post: Kornee



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)