Re: Diverging Opinions on Physics Foundations

From: DRLunsford (antimatter33_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/01/05

  • Next message: tessel_at_tum.bot: "Will Solar Eclipses Occur on 8 April 2005 and 3 November 2005?" 
    Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:17:44 +0000 (UTC)

    Arnold Neumaier wrote:

    > The paper only proves that there is an invariant metric of the form
    > ds2 = dt2 + k d\x2
    > and then puts k=-1/c^2 without argument. For k=0 one would get
    > Newton's setting, and for k>0 a $D Euclidean spacetime.

    Since there are interesting, perfect arguments, both synthetic and
    analytic, that start from the simplest assumptions (homogeneity,
    reciprocity etc. etc.), one wonders what further insight is needed.

    However the paper makes one important point:

    "Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a
    conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and
    the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist."

    Indeed, the vast majority of physicists labor under such a schism.
    "We're looking back in time...we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes
    ago...This light left Andromeda 2.5 million years ago..."

    It is *very* hard to think only in terms of local time. In the real,
    physical sense, I see the Sun only as it is *right now*, likewise the
    distant objects in the Universe. There is no operational meaning to the
    idea of "looking back in time", and so an actual, physically motivated
    cosmology, rather than just another creation myth, is difficult to
    construct. The requirement of "nowness" is much like the elusive
    Machian influence of distant masses.

    Possibly to make such a thing, one needs a change of spatio-temporal
    element from point event to light cone generator (e.g. twistors). And
    so, one should look for a formalism that has a tight expression in the
    new elements.

    -drl

  • Next message: tessel_at_tum.bot: "Will Solar Eclipses Occur on 8 April 2005 and 3 November 2005?"
    • Quantcast