Re: Newton and Einstein on the multiple natures of space and time

From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: 6 Jul 2004 07:38:21 -0700

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<JsiGc.12923$z81.11221@fed1read01>...

> >>>I think it is clear that both Newton and Einstein were very aware
> >>>of the multiple natures of space and time.
> >>
> >> Newton thought that momentum as measured by two
> >>observers, one moving with a moving object and one not
> >>moving with it, would be identical. This is because he
> >>believed in Absolute space and time (and by implication,
> >>Galilean velocity transforms)
>
> > True, he believed in absolute space and time but he also believed in
> > relative space and time.
>
> That's not what I get from the following.
>
> > Read Newton's words from my original post again:
> >
> > <quote>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.
>
> Newton's idea of relative time and space are very
> different from Einstein's.
>
> Above, Newton says, quite properly, that what he calls
> "common time" is determined by scaling observable cyclical
> events against each other, but since we know that some of
> them vary, we can't trust its long-term accuracy. Since
> these events are unequable (days per calendar year frinst)
> these scales cannot be fundamental. He knows about clocks,
> and comparing observables to the motions of the hands, and
> their varying ratios to slop in the gear ratios in the
> clock, he improperly infers that there exists a Master
> Balance Wheel which determines an unvarying, smallest
> possible tick rate of time which _could_ be used to relate
> all the common scales together.

I think you are right up until the "_could_ be used."

Newton clearly states that relative time is the time that is observed.
This should imply that absolute time cannot be observed and thus it
cannot be used the way you describe.

So, I think that his inference that there is an absolute time
underlying observed relative time is not improper in the way that you
suggest.

 
> He is not saying that locally measured (relative) time is
> dependent on one's state of motion WRT other objects, as
> Einstein pointed out.

This may be true, but it is somewhat besides the point. It is true
Einstein had more insight into what relative time itself was, but the
bigger picture here is the relationship between the multiple natures
of time.

<snip>

> > This is correct, because Einstein made the assertion that we should
> > only predict using relative space-time. This doesn't contradict the
> > fact, however, that he still thought absolute space-time could exist
> > beyond our observations. Here, again, is the comment from Heisenberg to
> > Einstein states this rather clearly:
> >
> > "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."
>
> Heisenberg's main point here is accessibility; if you
> can't find a way to unambiguously detect something, in what
> sense can it be said to exist?

It can be conjectured to exist. For example, can you unamibigously
detect the curvature of space-time? I don't think so.

But if you conjecture it to exist, and find out where this conjecture
leads, it might turn out to be valuable. This is the scientific
method, after all.

<snip>
> One of Einstein's "Philosophical Assumptions" was the
> existence of a God; not necessarily Newton's Clockmaker, but
> still one that built the Universe to a sense of order. That
> limited the possible kinds of theory he was willing to
> contemplate "on principle"; any that did not include his
> theological assumption had to be "nonsense".

Einstein's bias is not theological; it is the scientific method!

His position in the exchange is that it is nonsense to assume that
only observable magnitudes may go into theory. The reason for this is
the heart of theory creation lies in the hypothesis stage; it is
making conjectures, creating them from pure imaginative thinking...
and *then* finding out how well the conjectures withstand experimental
testing.

In other words, it is Hiesenberg (and unfortunately, the scientific
community at large) that is limiting the possible kinds of theories
they may contemplate, not Einstein. It is more unfortunate that this
limitation is made in the name of the scientific method, when clearly
the scientific method would include the contemplation of the excluded
hypotheses.
 
> I'm an atheist; I can't allow unobservable assumptions.
> How about you?

I'm an atheist (and a deist, since they don't really contradict), but
I can allow unobservable assumptions.

I don't see how "I can't allow unobservable assumptions" follows from
"I'm an atheist."

Look at the stars. In the galaxies furthest away from us we see a
red-shift. This is observable. From there we posit that the galaxy is
expanding. This is an unobservable assumption. We don't see space
expand, we interpret our observations this way.
 
> > As I said, Newton and Einstein both understood the necessity and role
> > of the absolute and relative natures of space and time. I think in our
> > studies of both Newton and Einstein this hugely important detail is
> > often ignored, most likely because of how difficult to understand the
> > concepts are as a result of their incompleteness.
>
> The concepts are easy; the difficulty lies in
> demonstrating the existence of any kind of absolute.
>
> >> This is not up for debate; experiment proved Newton flat
> >>wrong.
>
> > It is also quite different from topic I was discussing.
> >
> > The quotations from Newton and Einstein unmistakenably show that both
> > believed that there was absolute space and time as well as relative
> > space and time.
>
> Belief is not proof.

Ok. So? As the title line indicates, we're discussing what Newton and
Einstein thought about space and time.

At first you disagreed with my assertion that both believed space and
time came in two flavors, absolute and relative. I think we are now
closer to agreement?
 
> > I attempted to interject Leibniz's idea of absolute matter and relative
> > matter into that relationship.
>
> And so what? Do you see Leibniz presaging Relativistic
> mass increase? What is absolute matter in the face of E=mc^2?
>
> > I think its rather appropriate. Do you have anything to say on that
> > suggestion?
>
> Yes. While Newton assumed a master balance wheel
> somewhere running at the smallest possible increment of
> time, Einstein showed that time is relative to motion; the
> fastest clock (smallest tick rate) would be at rest WRT its
> observer and not subject to gravitational redshift, and the
> least massive object is similarly at rest WRT its observer.
>
> To determine Absolute space and time, you must therefore
> find a place where you can be at rest WRT everything, and
> there is no gravitational potential. There is no such place.

This is in complete agreement with what Newton, Einstein, and myself
have said. Absolute space and time does not exist in our observations.
The space and time in our observations is relative space and time. 

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Newton and Einstein on the multiple natures of space and time
    ... >> I think it is clear that both Newton and Einstein were very aware ... > believed in Absolute space and time (and by implication, ... Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything ... because Einstein made the assertion that we should ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Name that physicist
    ... That would have been Mr. Newton. ... He assumed there was such a thing as absolute space, ... That's often credited to Einstein for overturning Newton, ... what we can observe." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What problem does relativity solve?
    ... "He thought there was absolute time and relative ... So Newton, in his own words, clearly believes there are two types of ... And Einstein doesn't disagree with this. ... what we can observe." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!
    ... I have been wrong about Einstein for a long time. ... >> clocks ABSOLUTELY. ... This is true because light is source dependent and travel ... >> Apparently Einstein was also quite aware that TIME is absolute and universal. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!
    ... I have been wrong about Einstein for a long time. ... > By adjusting his clocks so that tAB equalled tBA, ... > 'absolute medium'. ... The correct ether theory would posit isotropy of the speed of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)