What's the story with physics?

[The Man]

Which is where the rubber meets the road.

Not that this validates the point they were trying to make. But on its own, it's accurate enough.

Well, technically, as noted, the rubber doesn't actually meet the road. Their electromagnetic fields simply interact.

Though kidding aside, most people don't seem to have a problem with a deterministic universe resulting in a probability of outcomes even with a billiard ball particle approach. In a two slit experiment when observing which slit the particle passes you get the same 50/50 result for each slit and the same interference pattern on the screen as you'd expect with billiard ball particles. However, when you're not watching which slit and the wave function encompasses both slits then the probabilistic outcome on the detection screen differs from that of the billiard ball particles. So the disconnect isn't about having a probability in outcomes (observables) but simple within where the determinism lies and that is the wave function as opposed to billiard ball particles.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hopefully not the Bayard Peakes level.

Hopefully she hasn't written a paper titled So You Love Physics.

 

[Mike Helland]

So the disconnect isn't about having a probability in outcomes (observables) but simple within where the determinism lies and that is the wave function as opposed to billiard ball particles.

Sure.

Not disagreeing.

It just happens the deterministic part is, by definition, unobservable.

This might sound funny, but I think QM would be a lot less mysterious if we revisited the metaphysics of Newton. They are not what you think.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

I. 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.

II. 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

The gist is, he's saying that people in the 1600's think of time and space and merely relative, simple apparent measurements determined by the senses.

He goes on to say there is "absolute time and space" in their own nature, and that physics describes these mathematical quantities.

Of course, we know latter that Mach and Einstein would come by and say, nah, actually our mathematics still describes relative time and space, the measurement outcomes.

I think Everett was headed in the right direction with his Relative State Formulation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/

What Everett is saying, (in my somewhat controversial interpretation) is that purely physical observers in a mathematical model will develop measurement records as a kind of "relative state", while the wave function is the determinate absolute reality.

 

[The Man]

Sure.

Not disagreeing.

It just happens the deterministic part is, by definition, unobservable.

This might sound funny, but I think QM would be a lot less mysterious if we revisited the metaphysics of Newton. They are not what you think.

Who says I've thought anything of them?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html



The gist is, he's saying that people in the 1600's think of time and space and merely relative, simple apparent measurements determined by the senses.

Of course, Galileo Galilei would sing for the timing of his acceleration experiments. Making positional marks on the beats. The human senses were the most available measuring tools at the time.

He goes on to say there is "absolute time and space" in their own nature, and that physics describes these mathematical quantities.

Right, so despite the relativity of our perceptions, actual space and time were considered absolute. Again reflected in Gallian relativity (also often referred to as Newtonian relativity) being based in an underlying absolute space and time.

Of course, we know latter that Mach and Einstein would come by and say, nah, actually our mathematics still describes relative time and space, the measurement outcomes.

But that's a different context, reversed in fact. The former being the relativity of our simple perceptions in an underlying absolute space and time and the latter being the relativity of space and time itself, even in spite of our perception that they should be absolute.

I think Everett was headed in the right direction with his Relative State Formulation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/

What Everett is saying, (in my somewhat controversial interpretation) is that purely physical observers in a mathematical model will develop measurement records as a kind of "relative state", while the wave function is the determinate absolute reality.

OK, glad you have come to an opinion on it. However, the problem with quantum mechanical interpretations is getting them to result in experimentally differentiable observables.

 

[Mike Helland]

But that's a different context, reversed in fact. The former being the relativity of our simple perceptions in an underlying absolute space and time and the latter being the relativity of space and time itself, even in spite of our perception that they should be absolute.

I get why you might think that, and I used to too. But Newton (and Einstein) would actually disagree with that.

Today we understand it in the context of this question: is time relative or absolute?

We say Newton thought absolute, but Einstein showed is its relative.

IMO, Newton (and Einstein) would find this rather confusing. In their opinion, there is absolute time, and there is also relative time. The question we ask is a false dilemma. Absolute time is absolute, and relative time is relative, and both exist. Newton and Einstein would agree that clock measurements are relative time. They would disagree only on what the mathematics depict. For Newton, he thought his mathematics depicted absolute time. Einstein's mathematics depict relative time.

If Newton had better clocks, he might have taken Einstein's side on this, like Leibniz did.

 

[The Man]

I get why you might think that, and I used to too. But Newton (and Einstein) would actually disagree with that.

It's not what I think, it's what they say, you even assert so yourself below and above.

Today we understand it in the context of this question: is time relative or absolute?

That's the same question, or at least half the same question.

We say Newton thought absolute, but Einstein showed is its relative.

No, we say Newton said there is "absolute time and space" just as Einstein said and showed there wasn't. Heck, even you said before what Newton said. Whatever you simply think they thought is irrelevant compared to what they said.

IMO, Newton (and Einstein) would find this rather confusing. In their opinion, there is absolute time, and there is also relative time. The question we ask is a false dilemma. Absolute time is absolute, and relative time is relative, and both exist. Newton and Einstein would agree that clock measurements are relative time. They would disagree only on what the mathematics depict. For Newton, he thought his mathematics depicted absolute time. Einstein's mathematics depict relative time.

Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinions but Newton didn't seem confused that our perception of time is relative while maintaining that time itself is absolute. Neither did Einstein seem confused that time is itself relative while our own perception is usually that there could or should always be some underlying absolute time. As such, it appears the confusion and false dichotomy are entirely yours.

If Newton had better clocks, he might have taken Einstein's side on this, like Leibniz did.

And if my grandmother had wheels...

 

[Mike Helland]

No, we say Newton said there is "absolute time and space" just as Einstein said and showed there wasn't.

Where did Einstein show that absolute time doesn't exist at all?

 

[The Man]

Where did Einstein show that absolute time doesn't exist at all?

So you didn't know where when you said...

We say Newton thought absolute, but Einstein showed is its relative.

...?

For your own edification.

Relativity of simultaneity^WP

 

[Mike Helland]

So you didn't know where when you said...
...?

I know what I said.

That today, we ask "is time relative or absolute?"

But Newton and Einstein (and Plato and Kant, etc) would have said that's a silly question.

Absolute time is absolute.

Relative time is relative.

Einstein never said absolute time does not exist.

"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.

Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63.

Generally, people can only think of time as being one way or another.

The natural philosopher does not think that way.

Absolute time exists, but relative time is what we observe and depict with physical theories.

 

[Belz...]

it is a simple argument you guys, you actually have something of any value to say, sure go ahead, we are all here to have fun with you...

You've said nothing that makes sense in the OP. What the hell is your argument, here?

 

[Belz...]

I think you guys

Excuse me. We are not a group of like-minded people. You are addressing individuals. Kindly do not try to assign blanket characteristics to us.

are thinking you may be funny writing nonsense down.

Irony!

Nothing means no results
something means expected results
and something else means something else than anything you can imagine, or unexpected results

That's still gibberish.

 

[The Man]

I know what I said.

As does everyone else here.

That today, we ask "is time relative or absolute?"

Certainly one of the things you said but you also said...

We say Newton thought absolute, but Einstein showed is its relative.

So where were you claiming "Einstein showed is its relative"?

But Newton and Einstein (and Plato and Kant, etc) would have said that's a silly question.

You saying what others "would have said" is still just other stuff you have said.

Absolute time is absolute.

Relative time is relative.

Absolute time is absolute and Relative time is relative is a tautology.

Time is absolute and Relative is a direct contradiction.

A tautology being always true but uninformative while a contradiction being self-demonstrably false.

Einstein never said absolute time does not exist.

I don't recall you saying that's what Einstein said, but you did say he showed it.

Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63.

Generally, people can only think of time as being one way or another.

Actually, people generally think all kinds of ways, including those lacking logical consistency (FALSE = NOT TRUE).

Particularly because accepting a direct contradiction as true means anything they want can be true. Unfortunately, it also means anything they explicitly don't want can be true as well.

The natural philosopher does not think that way.

Again just something you say about yourself as I seriously doubt all natural philosophers have designated you their spokesperson

Absolute time exists, but relative time is what we observe and depict with physical theories.

Well then, "The natural philosopher" should philosophize a bit more on exactly how meaningless that very assertion makes such a concept of "Absolute time". Even considering the quote you cited just before.

 

[Mike Helland]

Time is absolute and Relative is a direct contradiction.

If there is only one kind of time.

Newton wrote about two. Einstein talked about two. Everett wrote about two.

It's really our 21st century secular naive realism that limits us to 1, and this is what makes us struggle with things like the measurement problem.

 

[The Man]

If there is only one kind of time.

No, if there is only one dimension of time. Time is a coordinate value and so far, one is all we got.

Newton wrote about two. Einstein talked about two. Everett wrote about two.

As I've noted they spoke of our perception of time and of actual time, not of two dimensions of time.

It's really our 21st century secular naive realism that limits us to 1, and this is what makes us struggle with things like the measurement problem.

Actually it is really a lack of detection of another that currently limits us to one. As well as your own explicit assertion before that your concept of absolute time is specifically unobservable.

 

[Mike Helland]

As I've noted they spoke of our perception of time and of actual time, not of two dimensions of time.

Newton was pretty clear he believed in two types of time.

I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.

Until the 1950's, it seems the idea of different "levels" of time was pretty common.

It simply doesn't exist anymore.

Even when you tell people "Newton believed in two types of time", they have no framework for understanding it so they just say "I don't believe you."

Actually it is really a lack of detection of another that currently limits us to one. As well as your own explicit assertion before that your concept of absolute time is specifically unobservable.

Ok.

Isn't the wave function specifically unobservable?

 

[dudalb]

The OP and Monica just don't get who science works.....

 

[Kid Eager]

I come back after a couple of years away, read this thread, and I'm having ProgrammingGod Jordan flashbacks. It's just not worth it...

 

[arthwollipot]

I come back after a couple of years away, read this thread, and I'm having ProgrammingGod Jordan flashbacks. It's just not worth it...

There's always someone who thinks they're smarter than Einstein.

 

[catsmate]

There's always someone who thinks they're smarter than Einstein.

We seem to have at least four here atm.

 

[Belz...]

Newton was pretty clear he believed in two types of time.

Who cares what he believed? His theories were supplanted by better ones since then.