Newton and Einstein on the multiple natures of space and time

From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: 18 Jun 2004 00:39:27 -0700

First, the words of Newton:

<quote>
1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure
of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of
true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.

2. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, which our senses
determine by its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for
immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial,
or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the
earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and
magnitude, but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if
the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively
and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time
be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at
another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely
understood, it will be continually changed.
</quote>
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html

Notice how he says "in its own nature."

Now a little exchange between Einstein and Heisenberg (Heisenberg
speaking):

<quote>
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in
some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is
impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time
cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
determination of time."

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In
reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides
what we can observe."
</quote>
(In 'Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations', Harper
Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63.)

I think it is clear that both Newton and Einstein were very aware of
the multiple natures of space and time.

In general, what is the difference between absolute space and relative
space, or absolute time and relative time? It is that relative space
and time is what is observed. Or is it? This is a safe interpretation
of the quotes we've read so far. Let me try something slightly more
subtle. This might seem like word-play but if you bear with me you
will see the benefit of this explanation:

The observation of absolute space is relative space. The observation
of absolute time is relative time.

Or perhaps, even more boldly:

The observation of absolute space creates relative space. The
observation of absolute time creates relative time.

How can an observation "create" anything? First, let us consider what
observation is in the context of 20th century physics. We typically
make our observations by looking at things. We might use telescopes or
microscopes to help us out but more or less our observations are made
possible by light. Light is an electromagnetic interaction known as a
force, or at the least, it is our man-made description of a rule of
the universe. When rules are computed with the appropriate parameters
we get a result. This computed result can be how rule-based
observations are able to "create" something.

It is worth pointing out that this is not the first time the idea that
observation (or more specifically, rule-based interactions) can create
space and time has been put forward:

<quote>
Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings.
It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and
philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view,
to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence
of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to
see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to
accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen.
</quote>
http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm

We see here that Gibbs views interaction as the mechanism that allows
for relative space-time to exist, which is really saying that
observation creates relative space and time. This is difficult to
understand. We usually assume that space-time is the background of
interactions, but we're finding out its slightly more complicated than
that:

Absolute space-time allows interactions to exist, and interactions are
what allows relative space-time to exist.

This is a radical change to understanding nature. Gibbs then vaticly
asks, what else do we need to change? History again has clues for us.

Both Einstein and Newton were well aware of the role of absolute space
and absolute time but it seems as if neither picked up on the role of
absolute matter. This is where Leibniz's ideas stand out: his "monad"
can be thought of absolute matter which exists with a complete set of
properties that exists in absolute space and absolute time.
Observations of the monad resulted in the existence of the matter,
space, and time we are familiar with.

And we have actually been very close to re-incorporating these ideas
into modern physics with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum
mechanics.

I've detailed a new interpretation of quantum mechanics to flesh out
the Copenhagen Interpretation in the form of a hypothesis I call "The
Multiple Natures Hypothesis." Predictions about the space-time at and
within the event horizon of a black hole are given as well as details
on how to build a model using this new framework for physics. The
paper containing that information is located here:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

Because the concepts taken on by the paper are highly deviant from
accepted scientific thinking, I've put together a more accessible,
more playful version of those concepts here:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: absolute is known a priori
    ... >> We assume that their rulers contract and their clocks dilate according to ... >> their absolute speeds. ... >> and the law of nature are different in different moving labs. ... synchrony of nature timing: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... Awareness of self & Nature ... > relative time in addition to absolute space and absolute time. ... > follows the lead of Leibniz, who thought that matter was both relative ... We have fundamentals of Space & mass, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?
    ... Bob says that a statement in nature "is either true or it is false". ... there is no absolutely correct knowledge, ... And OOs are not part of science. ... -preponderance of the evidence ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... Awareness of self & Nature ... > relative time in addition to absolute space and absolute time. ... > follows the lead of Leibniz, who thought that matter was both relative ... We have fundamentals of Space & mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... Awareness of self & Nature ... > relative time in addition to absolute space and absolute time. ... > follows the lead of Leibniz, who thought that matter was both relative ... We have fundamentals of Space & mass, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading