General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

The past and future are connected by light quanta (i.e. emission and absorption are the same 4D event). It follows that both past and future coexist.

[The photon has no past or future, only now. There can be no accumulation of time since a clock process is not possible. A clock moving at c would not function. .......nothing happens in zero time.]

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head, or on the point, or got the point.

I don’t think Faradave has got the point (as yet), measuring lines with a point, that’s why he says point in bold, by which he drives home his point, but maybe it’s actually quite pointless?

I didn’t learn how to say "zero interval separation" , or “exactlyzero”, or to say “spatial pathlength is exactlyzero”, all I learnt was humble arithmetic and algebra, where I learnt that zero was a number to be treated with the utmost respect. I never learnt what "exactly zero" was, perhaps a lapse in my education.

I also learnt how to watch out for dividing any number by zero, and also not to divide zero by zero, both of which Faradave seems to do with impunity in arriving at his conclusions.

Catching up; World lines do not persist, no more than trajectories. They are histories of positions, and not observable as independent entities. If I want to visualize the Lewis and Clark exploration, there is a map that plots each position over a distance over an interval of time. The image of Tom is NOT Tom!

Again I think you have hit the nail on the head. The assumption that world lines persist, was repeated so many times by people here that even I assumed it to be true.

Faradave wrote:In 4D, a worldline is indelible

Hold on! He almost sold me indelible ink in a perishable Universe!

I did get taken in by snake oil once but indelible ink?

If you wish to deny Relativity, fine. If you wish to deny four dimensions, at least one of which is temporal (unidirectional), also fine. But Relativity entails 4D, including time and it certainly implies coexistence of past, present & future. Different inertial observers have different simultaneities (all space "now"). One observer's now entails another observer's past & future. That's how that geometry works. Take it or leave it.

phyti wrote:The photon has no past or future, only now. There can be no accumulation of time since a clock process is not possible. A clock moving at c would not function.

That's not quite right. Granted, a light quantum does not age but it does emit prior to its absorption. That is, it emits in the cosmological past, relative to its future cosmological absorption. Future displacement and aging are different processes. That's the whole point of "time dilation".

For those who then default to say (correctly) that a photon has no valid inertial frame, I must suggest that is strong evidence that photons have no valid existence either (after all, a "photon" has a null worldline). A "light quantum" is another matter as it corresponds to the energy of real orbital transitions. A photon is a useful model of the trajectory of the light quantum as projected on various other inertial frames.

rajnz00 wrote: indelible ink?

In the sense that I used it, "indelible" means "fixed".

rajnz00 wrote:I didn’t learn how to say "zero interval separation" , or “exactly zero”, or to say “spatial path length is exactly zero”, all I learnt was humble arithmetic and algebra, where I learnt that zero was a number to be treated with the utmost respect. I never learnt what "exactly zero" was, perhaps a lapse in my education.

I'm afraid what you haven't "learnt" is painfully obvious.

"zero interval separation" is the spacetime span obtained by subtraction of a spatial span from a temporal spans when both are equal. (Actually it's the difference of their squares and the order is unimportant but don't trouble yourself by checking a provided link.)

"exactly zero spatial path length" is obtained from the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform in the limit as speed goes to c. It results in the path observed in a valid inertial frame being divided by infinity which in turn follows from dividing 1 by zero. But don't trouble yourself.

Just as "exactly 1" is understood to mean 1.0 followed by infinite zeros, "exactly zero" is 0.0 followed by infinite zeros.

By the way, dividing by zero has long ago been addressed by basic calculus. Consider the slope of a straight diagonal line. We define it as rise over run (say ∆y/∆x). Suppose we ask the slope a of a small portion of that line? It's the same because its a straight line and we can verify by calculating the constant ratio of its smaller yet ∆y and ∆x. So what happens as we select smaller and smaller portions of the line in the limitas ∆x goes to zero? In calculus, if the slope remains constant as segments are chosen to converge on that point from above and from below, it is considered a "two-tailed limit", the line is considered "continuous" and it is granted that the slope is the same for every segment, including at any single internal point.

No charge for the free lessons. You can take or leave calculus as well as Relativity. But you won't get very far at SPCF if you deny what calculus says, what Relativity says or their respective successes. You'll just look foolish.

Faradave » 02 May 2020, 21:50 wrote:"exactly zero spatial path length" is obtained from the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform in the limit as speed goes to c. It results in the path observed in a valid inertial frame being divided by infinity which in turn follows from dividing 1 by zero. But don't trouble yourself.

FD, there are two reasons why this is objectionable.

1. "Exactly zero spatial path length" rather means that two events are precisely co-located in some inertial frame.

2. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is not valid when the relative speed between two inertial frame is equal to c, because that is an impossibility. A more precise statement would be that the Lorentz transformed values tend to zero as the the relative speeds between two inertial frame tends to c. But this is a reciprocal result, showing that the there is nothing absolute about the spatial length between events. It is really just a perspective.

we travel into the future at every moment, yet we never change it.

[Just a metaphorical figure of speech. Our clock keeps ticking, accumulating 'time'. New events occur, extending our history. Followed by a contradiction. You can't change what you don't know. The most you can do is cause events that result in an alternate outcome. Most events in human activity are composite with multiple possible outcomes. Biff enters a restaurant and is given a menu. If you don't know him, you can only speculate on what he orders.]

P1 God knows everything that you will do in your life, even before you were born.

[If true then it seems redundant to ask the first pair to make a choice!]

P2 If God knows everything that you will do, even before you do it, then you are not free to do, other than what you do.

[Then God is responsible for what you do.]

P3 If you are not free to do other than what you do, you lack free will, and hence moral responsibility.

Sometimes I think people on this forum don't really read.

Did you read what I wrote right AFTER that? The modally corrected argument arrives at the opposite conclusion from the one stated above. I endorse the modally corrected argument.

Also, I said you CAN'T change the future -- which does indeed exist on the block model. My point was that changing the future is not a prerequisite for having free will, as many people, including Petkov, and, alas, as I just discovered, Sabine, think.

BurtJordaan wrote:FD, there are two reasons why this is objectionable.1. "Exactly zero spatial path length" rather means that two events are precisely co-located in some inertial frame. … the Lorentz transformed values tend to zero

My mistake. Those are good criticisms. Wish I'd see more like them in other replies. With respect to Relativity, I've come across the term "arbitrarily close", which I admit will not yield a distance of 0.0 cm followed by infinite zeros. In principle however, enough zeros are achievable that the uncertainty in the positions of two approaching particles highly overlap. Their "separateness" would become statistically unsupportable. Nevertheless, I yield.

That still leaves us with lightlike intervals which are zero by definition (inasmuch as light quanta may be attributed speed c) and thus do co-locate events in 4D.

No response last time so I better say it again. We can't travel back in time and, similarly, we can't travel into the future. There's only now all the time.

charon wrote:No response last time so I better say it again. We can't travel back in time and, similarly, we can't travel into the future. There's only now all the time.

Why should there be a response? You're making a declaration. It doesn't sound like Relativity which entails The Block Universe.

If you want to make an issue of the word "travel", it should be understood to mean that a particle's worldline extends from smaller to larger temporal coordinates, regardless of changes in its spatial coordinates. c is a limit imposed on the 4D slope.

I hope I’m able to reply this time. It would be a pity if I don’t get the chance to thank Faradave for his free lessons.

Faradave » May 2nd, 2020, 3:50 pm wrote:rajnz00 & phyti, If you wish to deny Relativity, fine [Strawman]. If you wish to deny four dimensions, at least one of which is temporal (unidirectional), also fine [Strawman]. But Relativity entails 4D, including time and it certainly implies coexistence of past, present & future [So you say, but you have produced no evidence that Relativity says anything of the sort]. Different inertial observers have different simultaneities (all space "now"). One observer's now entails another observer's past & future. That's how that geometry works. Take it or leave it.

You have not demonstrated that Relativity “certainly implies coexistence of past, present & future”, or answered my arguments about the Einstein experiment directly.

rajnz00 wrote:I didn’t learn how to say "zero interval separation" , or “exactly zero”, or to say “spatial path length is exactly zero”, all I learnt was humble arithmetic and algebra, where I learnt that zero was a number to be treated with the utmost respect. I never learnt what "exactly zero" was, perhaps a lapse in my education.

I'm afraid what you haven't "learnt" is painfully obvious. ..... Just as "exactly 1" is understood to mean 1.0 followed by infinite zeros, "exactly zero" is 0.0 followed by infinite zeros.

Indeed? I think Zeno had figured out there is no such thing. But that was a few thousand years ago. And he didn’t have the advantage of the education you have.

By the way, dividing by zero has long ago been addressed by basic calculus. Consider the slope of a straight diagonal line. We define it as rise over run (say ∆y/∆x). Suppose we ask the slope a of a small portion of that line? It's the same because its a straight line and we can verify by calculating the constant ratio of its smaller yet ∆y and ∆x. So what happens as we select smaller and smaller portions of the line in the limit as ∆x goes to zero? In calculus, if the slope remains constant as segments are chosen to converge on that point from above and from below, it is considered a "two-tailed limit", the line is considered "continuous" and it is granted that the slope is the same for every segment, including at any single internal point.

That’s not what my maths teacher taught me. What he said was ∆x goes towards zero or tends to zero.

In other words, approaches zero but doesn't quite get there.

Written as dx _{-->0}. He told me that was so because ∆x to never actually reach zero as division by zero was forbidden, so Newton figured that out when he invented differential calculus.

Faradave » 03 May 2020, 01:21 wrote:That still leaves us with lightlike intervals which are zero by definition (inasmuch as light quanta may be attributed speed c) and thus do co-locate events in 4D.

I'm afraid I can't agree to this either. Events in 4D in what inertial frame? Light does not have an inertial frame in which you can state coordinates. Technically, it is a null interval and the geodesic followed by a photon is a null geodesic. But that does not mean we collapse 4D into a infinitesimal point - 4D needs space and time coordinates marked with finite values marked on them.

Yes, you can say the math says that the interval between events on the a null geodesic is exactly zero, but that does not equate to co-location. I know you have a 'private interpretation' of special relativity, which I think you call "interval coordinates", but that's not accepted physics. And as far as I can remember, it stands no chance on technical and philosophical grounds.

You are welcome to link to those threads here, but please let's keep their discussion separate.

I assume that by "free" we both mean "exactly zero" charge. Otherwise, you owe me. ;o)

rajnz00 wrote:You have not demonstrated that Relativity “certainly implies coexistence of past, present & future”,

I refer to what is written about Relativity. You're free to agree or disagree that it represents reality. Relativity of simultaneity means that the "now" of one inertial frame entails the past and future of a different inertial frame. "Now" is conveniently represented by the x-coordinate at a given moment. Different inertial frames have x-coordinates at relative angles to each other as seen below. Take it or leave it. Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

rajnz00 wrote:[My "exactly zero"] Zeno had figured out there is no such thing.

According to you and Zeno, we don't need to address your thought experiment because the approaching lightning bolt never actually strikes Amy. Good luck explaining that to her grieving family.

rajnz00 wrote:my maths teacher taught me … ∆x goes towards zero or tends to zero. In other words, approaches zero but doesn't quite get there.

That's as much a deficiency in math as in nature. Your teacher would not deny dead Amy nor (by continuity) that the line contains a single sizeless internal point. The slope at that point is the same as for any other segment. Calculus gets us past that and many other math deficiencies (such as summing an "infinite" series).

BurtJordaan wrote:4D needs space and time coordinates marked with finite values marked on them

Agreed. What else does 4D need?

A line segment (1D) provides two paths to contact with a central point. For each of those paths there are infinite radial contact paths to a central point on a plane (2D). For each of those, there are infinite radial contact paths in a volume (3D). For each of those, there are infinite radial contact paths in 4D. That's not a "private" interpretation, it's a simple dimensional progression to geometry in 4D.

Two geometric points in contact are co-located even if they are assigned different coordinates. This is known to occur in non-Euclidean geometries, thus the south pole's many coordinate identities. 4D spacetime is also non-Euclidean so there will be similar distortions, especially as we have established an infinite majority of contact paths in 4D are non-classical (i.e. not in a given spatial 3-plane). There can be no better interpretation of "zero interval separation" than contact (i.e. co-location).

BurtJordaan wrote:Yes, you can say the math says that the interval between events on the a null geodesic is exactly zero, but that does not equate to co-location.

Two widely separate locations on a piece of paper can still be in contact if the paper bends back on itself (a common depiction of a wormhole).

In spacetime, zero interval separation only occurs when spatial and temporal separations are equal (given by the unitary ratio of c). But to observers such as us (embedded in 4D) that means interval contact is speed dependent. Further, it is a speed unattainable by massive observers. It remains however, the simplest explanation of how action at a distance is routinely achieved by our lightlike fields.

Faradave » May 3rd, 2020, 11:51 am wrote:I refer to what is written about Relativity. You're free to agree or disagree that it represents reality. .....

I think I have finally figured out what Faradave is trying to say about why he claims SR implies a block universe.

From Faradave’s strenuous forays into simultaneity I think I understand what he is wanting to say, but doesn’t in plain English because he is too involved in jargon and dividing lines by points and numbers by zeros. If he did though he would realise his error.

1. In Einstein’s train experiment, two events take place. Mary thinks they take place at the same time. Amy thinks that the event at the front of the train takes place first and the event at the back of the train takes place later. 2. Who is right? Answer, they both are from their own perspective. 3. This is the step in his argument he misses out – a question he misses out - are the events simultaneous? 4. Mary – Yes 5. Amy – No 6. Since Amy will observe the event at the rear of the train after Mary does, and if Mary were to also, somehow, thereafter, simultaneously observe the photons of the same event approaching Amy she would be observing a future series of events that happen between the time she observes the event and Amy observes it. (But actually that can't happen because of the speed of light). 7. This would be true for Mary standing on any line perpendicular to the train, Amy in the middle of the train, and any length of the train.

What I think Faradave is saying, is both of the events at the end of the train are simultaneous according to Mary, and since they are not according to Amy both the past and future exist, because, and this is the missing step in his argument, the future and past of the events are observed by an observer in a different frame (Mary).

But here is the fallacy in the argument. Just because a separate observer judges the two events as happening simultaneously, ie at the same time, does that actually fix the time of the two events which are spatially apart? I think in practical terms that makes no sense. They could conventionally be assigned a simultaneous time by Mary moving along the perpendicular line bisecting the train, but that does not say anything about the Now of the two events.

Every event has a Now that is special to itself.

To say that two events are simultaneous along a line of simultaneity, when they are actually spatially apart, is purely subjective and not peculiar to the events themselves.

They only stem from observations made from afar and do not describe the Now of the objects.

This would become clearer if one could visualise two people observing a solar flare on a distant star, one on Earth and the other on Pluto. Do their observations have any bearing on the actual time of the event on the distant star? No! Only the distant star “knows” when the event takes place. They are both seeing a recording of an event of the past.

At some other place on this site I had said that our sensation of Now probably stems from the expansion of the Universe, where space and time, and hence the future, is continuously being created.

Each of us is carried along our individual bubbles on the surfaces of our Nows into the still non-existent and uncreated future, which living creatures like us are creating for ourselves.

BurtJordaan » May 3rd, 2020, 8:35 am wrote: Yes, you can say the math says that the interval between events on the a null geodesic is exactly zero, but that does not equate to co-location.

A null geodesic does equate to co-location. For example, if an atom in location A has an electron in a high energy orbit and an atom in location B has an electron in a low energy orbit, the two electrons can momentarily interact instantly on a null geodesic as if there were no separation between them. This is known as an entangled state and the location of the two electrons while entangled is said to be indeterminate or in a state of superposition. They share a common co-location.

When entanglement is lost, the location of the electrons becomes determinate again but, if atom B now has its electron in a high energy orbit while atom A has its electron in a low energy orbit, it will appear as if the electrons have swapped locations. The electrons remain in their respective atoms but they have swapped their energy level identities where one electron quantum jumps to a higher level as the other simultaneously drops to a lower energy level.

This never happens in our macro world so it seems impossible but it happens at the quantum level in any light related exchange of energy. There is no particle intermediate “photon” involved so this does not square with photon theory.

10. A “photon” can be best viewed as a transaction between two atoms on the same lightcone. Such a transaction requires an exquisite degree of phase matching between the quantum states of the two coupled atoms, and is therefore a rare event. Photon statistics result from the chance correlations of atomic wave function phases.

11. The “photon” transaction can be viewed as a brief entanglement of the quantum states of the two participating atoms.

12. The transaction is itself a completely continuous process. When a transaction is initiated, it grows exponentially with time. This highly nonlinear evolution gives the appearance of an abrupt “quantum jump”as the atomic wave functions “collapse”.

Mead’s mention of an exponentially increasing transaction refers to experimental observations where entangled electrons appear to be interacting with increasing numbers of other electrons in the vicinity.

charon wrote:No response last time so I better say it again. We can't travel back in time and, similarly, we can't travel into the future. There's only now all the time.

Why should there be a response? You're making a declaration. It doesn't sound like Relativity which entails The Block Universe.

If you want to make an issue of the word "travel", it should be understood to mean that a particle's worldline extends from smaller to larger temporal coordinates, regardless of changes in its spatial coordinates. c is a limit imposed on the 4D slope.

But you're positing some sort of real-world example of trains, grandfathers, etc. Now you only talk about particles. I'm not sure one is the other, or that one can be answered in terms of the other.

I also don't see why the two are separated. Trains are particles and vice versa.

But, of course you're not really talking about either trains or particles, it's all conceptual. So, like I said before, I don't see what the question is. I wish I did.

BurtJordaan » May 3rd, 2020, 8:35 am wrote: Yes, you can say the math says that the interval between events on the a null geodesic is exactly zero, but that does not equate to co-location.

A null geodesic does equate to co-location. For example, if an atom in location A has an electron in a high energy orbit and an atom in location B has an electron in a low energy orbit, the two electrons can momentarily interact instantly on a null geodesic as if there were no separation between them.

Nonsense. I know FDave also holds this view, but it is false. This is not an effect of entanglement, but one of energy transfer and that does not happen instantaneously in any inertial frame whatsoever.

Faradave » 03 May 2020, 17:51 wrote:Two widely separate locations on a piece of paper can still be in contact if the paper bends back on itself

This does not constitute co-location at all. It is a null-interval between two distant locations.

Much of this confusion probably comes from your private theory creating the physically incorrect impression that points on a lightcone can be considered instantly connected and hence co-located. Likewise is it false to say that events simultaneous in closed 4D spacetimes, can also be called co-located.

If I remember correctly, we are in a thread about the block universe, so these arguments are really off-topic.

Faradave » 03 May 2020, 17:51 wrote:Two widely separate locations on a piece of paper can still be in contact if the paper bends back on itself

This does not constitute co-location at all. It is a null-interval between two distant locations.

A null-interval between two distinct locations sounds like two mutually exclusive conditions. In the event of entanglement, two or more particles are observed to be simultaneously co-located in their interactions while maintaining their distant locations relative to outside observers.

BurtJordaan » May 4th, 2020, 12:28 am wrote:Much of this confusion probably comes from your private theory creating the physically incorrect impression that points on a lightcone can be considered instantly connected and hence co-located. Likewise is it false to say that events simultaneous in closed 4D spacetimes, can also be called co-located.

Assuming that the impossible happens and a co-located energy transfer takes place in two distant locations where an atom in location A loses energy at the same instant its companion atom in location B increases in energy. How could this be distinguished from a classical transfer of energy carried out by a photon?

BurtJordaan » May 4th, 2020, 12:28 am wrote:If I remember correctly, we are in a thread about the block universe, so these arguments are really off-topic.

The concept of co-located points on a lightcone is essential to the block universe and I consider it to be the best demonstrated and most essential part of the theory so how can co-location be “off topic?”

Last edited by bangstrom on May 4th, 2020, 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Faradave » May 3rd, 2020, 11:51 am wrote:According to you and Zeno, we don't need to address your thought experiment because the approaching lightning bolt never actually strikes Amy...

I’m afraid you have not been listening to my (also free) lessons.

Zeno solved his paradox by arguing that distance was not infinitely divisible. And, though he was not as educated as you, the Planck length seems to validate his argument.

A corollary of his argument would be there is no such thing as absolute zero or “exactly zero”. But this was only the understanding till you came along.

That's as much a deficiency in math as in nature. Your teacher would not deny … that the line contains a single sizeless internal point.

What was that? How many points are there in a line? I think there is more than a single point in a line. But that's just what my maths teacher taught me.

Lines and points are constructs of the mind. We use the concepts to solve problems, but they do not exist in reality, as are numbers, 1, 2, 3,…… (Oh and 0 also)

The slope at that point is the same as for any other segment.

I don’t think so. I'm afraid that your lessons on calculus aren’t the best. My maths teacher did a better job methinks. Not that I’m being ungrateful mind you. It’s not the quality of the gift I value but the thought behind it.

The slope of a line would only be the same as for any other segment if it was a straight line. Then you wouldn’t need differential calculus, simple trigonometry would do.

Calculus gets us past that and many other math deficiencies (such as summing an "infinite" series).

Calculus can solve slopes of curved lines using differential calculus (and “infinitesimals”, which are close to zero but not quite your “exactly zero”), and also to calculate their paths, and the only “infinite” series that can be summed are convergent series, using integral calculus.

But what would I know? I only learnt calculus whereas you learnt "zero interval separation" , “exactly zero”, and “spatial path lengths [that are] exactly zero” and all those highfalutin things I know nothing about..

Entangled electrons demonstrate a block universe? Who knew. A whole universe, where the past and future exist, are real and fixed or pre-determined all because electrons get entangled. Could be. Not saying you are wrong but how do you get from entangled electrons to a block universe?

bangstrom » 04 May 2020, 10:53 wrote:Assuming that the impossible happens and a co-located energy transfer takes place in two distant locations where an atom in location A loses energy at the same instant its companion atom in location B increases in energy. How could this be distinguished from a classical transfer of energy carried out by a photon?

Firstly, to avoid misunderstanding, I referred to Faradave's theory. The answer is that you can, but only after waiting for a signal to pass the intervening distance. Then you know which was which in the inertial frame of either atom you choose.

Think about in what frame would you make the observations to establish your apparent belief...

If you wish to deny Relativity, fine. If you wish to deny four dimensions, at least one of which is temporal (unidirectional), also fine. But Relativity entails 4D, including time and it certainly implies coexistence of past, present & future. Different inertial observers have different simultaneities (all space "now"). One observer's now entails another observer's past & future. That's how that geometry works. Take it or leave it.

I don't deny Relativity, I welcome it as a reality check for those who think they know how the world works. From the science confessionals, "it's more complicated than we originally thought". The Minkowski 4D interpretation has advantages as a mathematical representation of SR but lacks clarity when explaining in abstract terms. Like the orbits, 4-vectors are only observed on paper. Minkowski generalized by representing 'time' as a line, which removes its identity, all lines look alike. Even spacetime graphics use this idea, eliminating useless detail. It is geometry, and can be represented with properties of a circle. Can't agree with mixing tenses, since they only have meaning when referred to the proper observer. If there is no universal time, and it's relative to each observer, tenses should be irrelevant. Yes, simultaneity is relative, and limited to local events. A network of synchronized clocks is an idealization, and logistically impossible. Consider the effort made maintaining the GPS system.

That's not quite right. Granted, a light quantum does not age but it does emit prior to its absorption. That is, it emits in the cosmological past, relative to its future cosmological absorption. Future displacement and aging are different processes. That's the whole point of "time dilation".

Emission (a-event) does occur before absorption (b-event) but not in the frame/life of the photon. I don't see any connection to time dilation, which is caused by motion. I see the photon as a messinger particle/thingy that transfers energy from one location to another. If photon production ceased, nothing would happen.

rajnz00 » May 4th, 2020, 4:14 am wrote:Entangled electrons demonstrate a block universe? Who knew. A whole universe, where the past and future exist, are real and fixed or pre-determined all because electrons get entangled. Could be. Not saying you are wrong but how do you get from entangled electrons to a block universe?

A whole determinate universe is not necessarily the case. The observation is that the emission of light is not a random scatter but one charged particle only emits light to another charged particle with simultaneous participation at both locations of absorption and emission. Emission and absorption are simultaneous events so energy is conserved. We don’t have a large body of energy in the form of photons in deep space waiting for a place to land. Energy doesn’t have a holding pattern.

Electrons in the present emit energy to future electrons and receive energy from electrons in the past. The absorption of energy by future electrons may alter their arrangement so the future isn’t necessarily predetermined.

bangstrom » 04 May 2020, 10:53 wrote:Assuming that the impossible happens and a co-located energy transfer takes place in two distant locations where an atom in location A loses energy at the same instant its companion atom in location B increases in energy. How could this be distinguished from a classical transfer of energy carried out by a photon?

Firstly, to avoid misunderstanding, I referred to Faradave's theory. The answer is that you can, but only after waiting for a signal to pass the intervening distance. Then you know which was which in the inertial frame of either atom you choose.

Think about in what frame would you make the observations to establish your apparent belief...

The which from which information is found in the before and after observation of which electron gained and which electron lost a quantum of energy but that tells you nothing about the timing.

SR tells us that events separated by space are also separated by time so two otherwise simultaneous events can never be observed as simultaneous. How can you tell if the observed signal time was due to the ever-present spacetime between two locations or due to the time it took the photon to travel through space.

bangstrom » May 4th, 2020, 1:25 pm wrote:......The observation is that the emission of light is not a random scatter but one charged particle only emits light to another charged particle with simultaneous participation at both locations of absorption and emission. Emission and absorption are simultaneous events so energy is conserved. We don’t have a large body of energy in the form of photons in deep space waiting for a place to land. Energy doesn’t have a holding pattern.

Your statement that “emission of light is not a random scatter” is a non sequitur to “but one charged particle only emits light to another charged particle” (it does not follow from the second statement).

If charged particles are randomly scattered, then emission of light would also be randomly scattered, even if they only emit to another charged particle.

How are these “observations” confirmed?

with simultaneous participation at both locations of absorption and emission.

Again how is simultaneous participation confirmed?

Emission and absorption are simultaneous events so energy is conserved. We don’t have a large body of energy in the form of photons in deep space waiting for a place to land. Energy doesn’t have a holding pattern.

Potential energy exists. Water in a dam has a large amount of potential energy. Any effort against gravity builds up potential energy. Maybe the big bang itself was a huge source of potential energy.

Electrons in the present emit energy to future electrons and receive energy from electrons in the past.

Where did you get that from? You haven’t established your reasoning to get this statement from your previous statements.

The absorption of energy by future electrons may alter their arrangement so the future isn’t necessarily predetermined.

You’ve gone way ahead. No point arguing about the colour of the unicorn, if the presence of the unicorn hasn’t been established.

rajnz00 wrote:From Faradave’s strenuous forays into simultaneity … he is too involved in jargon

No matter what your interest, there's going to be jargon. Without familiarization, communication in any field will be as muddled ours. For example, in Relativity an "event" is simply a location in 4D (identifiable with 4 coordinates from some agreed origin). In common vernacular "event" typically means an occurrence of some phenomenon, which may or may not be the case in Relativity.

A spacetime "interval" is merely the separation of two 4D events. Zero separation has no other reasonable interpretation than contact in 4D. Though observers in different inertial frames may disagree on the spatial & temporal coordinates of two events, they all agree on the interval separation, so intervals are considered "invariant".

rajnz00 wrote:To say that two events are simultaneous along a line of simultaneity, when they are actually spatially apart, is purely subjective and not peculiar to the events themselves.

Though I find the rest of your post to be gibberish, there is a glimmer of hope in this statement. Dwell on it.

Another term "simultaneity" stems literally from "simul" = same, and "tim" = time. So, at the same moment. In Relativity a simultaneity most generally means all space (the entire cosmos) at a given time t, and Δt = 0. In the brief video, they explain very nicely that if we accept the second postulate of Relativity (c=c'), then observers in relative motion have different simultaneities. [/quote]

It's not a trick, they're equally legitimate cosmic slices of the same universe (the "universe" is all space and all time, 4D). But to have different, equally legitimate slices of the universe means having the whole universe to begin with. This is what Relativity says. If you don't want it or like it, OK.

charon wrote:Trains are particles and vice versa.

I often revert to fundamental particles because they are attributed no size and thus have the simplest worldlines. The worldline for a composite object such as you is a swarm of worldlines often referred to as a "world tube" or "world Braide". But unless someone objects, you can be represented by a single worldline corresponding to your center of mass.

BurtJordaan wrote:Nonsense. I know FDave also holds this view, but it is false. This is not an effect of entanglement, but one of energy transfer and that does not happen instantaneously in any inertial frame whatsoever.

Though I conceded that a light quantum does not have a valid inertial frame, bangstrom has not. Surely we all agree that the transforms suggest the spatial and temporal coordinates of a particle in motion collapse together as its speed approaches limit c. Some might characterize a photon's frame as "degenerate" but an inertial frame nonetheless. Either way a photon is either an invalid particle or a degenerate particle.

bangstrom's (and Meade's) use of the term "instantaneous" would apply to the photon's frame invalid or degenerate though it may be. From any valid inertial frame, light transmission is lightlike (with measurable and equal Δt & Δx).

BurtJordaan wrote:This does not constitute co-location at all. It is a null-interval between two distant locations.

With respect to interval separation "null" and "zero" are used interchangeably in the literature. "null" is not here intended to mean "illegitimate", "degenerate" or "invalid". Zero interval separation is an exact, invariant measure of the 4D separation of two events which may communicate by light. It is contact, but it is unintuitive because it is velocity-dependent contact, specifically c-dependent contact.

BurtJordaan wrote:we are in a thread about the block universe, so these arguments are really off-topic

Of course, that judgment is well entrusted to you.

If we're discussing a block universe, we're discussing 4D. I made the undeniable case that in 4D the infinite majority of radial contact pathways to any arbitrary event must be non-classical (i.e. have a temporal component). These paths lead to contact as their spans tend to zero. In Euclidean 4D, an interval (d) would be d = √(Δx²+Δy²+Δz²+Δt²), where contact would be intuitive (Δx=Δy=Δz=Δt=0). But spacetime is non-Euclidean, given that invariant intervals are the difference in the squares of spatial and temporal separations.

That means, the infinite excess of contacts available in spacetime have non-zero spatial and temporal separations. (Otherwise, where are they?) I don't see anything private about this inescapable conclusion.

rajnz00 wrote:Zeno solved his paradox

Good, then let's not hear anymore of him. If you want to invoke a Planck length, just do so.

rajnz00 wrote:there is no such thing as absolute zero or “exactly zero”.

It's the separation between two adjacent Planck lengths.

rajnz00 wrote:I think there is more than a single point in a line.

You're wasting time. You know very well that I was referring to a single point on a line segment.

rajnz00 wrote:Lines and points are constructs of the mind. We use the concepts to solve problems, but they do not exist in reality

I'm beginning to pity you. What you're saying is that because 3D exists, there cannot be 2D, 1D (a line), or 0D (a point location). A mathematical object does not have to be a material object.

rajnz00 wrote:Calculus can solve slopes of curved lines using differential calculus (and “infinitesimals”, which are close to zero but not quite your “exactly zero”)

I don't really care. The slope of a single point on a curve is attributed the slope of it's tangent. Calculating the tangent slope with non-zero rise & run avoids division by zero, if that's what you're afraid of. That slope still applies to a single point on the curve and the "curve" can be a straight line.

phyti wrote:I see the photon as a messinger particle/thingy that transfers energy from one location to another. If photon production ceased, nothing would happen.

Hi phyti, I see photons replaced by contact via "pinholes" (particle-interaction wormholes) best seen with interval-time coordinates in this post.

rajnz00 » May 4th, 2020, 3:32 pm wrote: If charged particles are randomly scattered, then emission of light would also be randomly scattered, even if they only emit to another charged particle.

You are right that light is emitted to randomly scattered particles but the non-randon nature of emission means that the transmission of a quantum of energy does not, and can not, take place until a non-local connection has been established between the emitting and absorbing atoms so the absorbing atom is an active part of the emission and not an accidental target.

rajnz00 » May 4th, 2020, 3:32 pm wrote: How are these “observations” confirmed? Again how is simultaneous participation confirmed?

There is a body of evidence that either directly or indirectly confirms the observation that light energy transfers as if prescient of its destination. This is possible if an emitting atom has a simultaneous interaction with an atom receptive to the emission. The most direct evidence can be found in quantum experiments involving tests the Wheeler delayed choice experiment or the quantum eraser experiment.

Some less definitive evidence can be found in the way light reflects from surfaces. Feynman describes these experiments in his QED. The Dirac three polarizer experiment demonstrates how light appears to “know” the number and orientation of polarizing lenses before it enters a series of polarizers and, with the double slit experiment, single emissions of light energy appear to “know” the patterns they should make before they arrive.

Emission and absorption are simultaneous events so energy is conserved. We don’t have a large body of energy in the form of photons in deep space waiting for a place to land. Energy doesn’t have a holding pattern.

Potential energy exists. Water in a dam has a large amount of potential energy. Any effort against gravity builds up potential energy. Maybe the big bang itself was a huge source of potential energy.

The idea is that potential energy can go from one location to kinetic or potential energy in another location without a "hang time" between.

Electrons in the present emit energy to future electrons and receive energy from electrons in the past.

Where did you get that from? You haven’t established your reasoning to get this statement from your previous statements.

All light we observe comes to us from our past. Sunlight arrives from the sun 500 seconds in our past and star light can can be from years or many centuries in our past and it works both ways. Light emitted from our present arrives at some point in our future.

The absorption of energy by future electrons may alter their arrangement so the future isn’t necessarily predetermined.

You’ve gone way ahead. No point arguing about the colour of the unicorn, if the presence of the unicorn hasn’t been established.

Whether the block model is determinative like a movie so there is no such thing as freewill or if we have freewill and we can change our future, either possibility is a unicorn of pure speculation.

Oh well, one last go. The trouble is that the issue at hand here isn't clear. That's one thing. The other is that real problems can only be solved in reality, not by spinning theories. If you only want to play with ideas, like toys, then you'll never get anywhere. And we're 5 or 6 pages into it already.

The idea of the universe as a neat block is nonsense, of course; it may be something limitless. But it's not nonsense to say that all time is in the present. It's we who separate it into past, present and future as 3 different things. Obviously it's one thing.

One question is whether it's a flow or just 'there'. To our eyes, apparently, it flows. There was the past, we're in the present, and there's the future on the horizon. Is that real or illusion? We can be told the answer to that but it doesn't mean we see it for ourselves.

Actually it's illusion as, I think, Einstein said himself. I only quote Einstein because people know his name and nobody knows me (thank god!). But it's illusory anyhow. It's our minds, our thought, which analyses and divides things into separate pieces. I mean, you could divide anything into its component parts but the thing remains what it is. A flower, broken down into the smallest pieces, is still just the flower.

So what our minds create isn't true, isn't reality. If that's clear, what is your problem then? I know we talk in terms of yesterday and tomorrow but that's convenience. Nor does it mean that we live in a non-temporal world, quite the contrary. It doesn't mean we can be late for things or neglect dates and times.

But there is movement. That's indisputable. Everything is moving, changing. It's a simple fact of life. There's no such thing as permanence or stasis. Clouds move, birds fly, trains travel, and particles move. On that level particles are no different from anything else. So there is movement.

But the introduction of time is our doing. It's we who have invented time and measured it. There have been several systems of time measurement over the ages, each one slightly different. So time is our own construct. Otherwise there's just movement. And all movement, any movement at all, takes place in the present.

So where is time? And what is the meaning of it? As I say, it's convenient for reference, we'd be a bit lost without it. But the fact is that, for each one of us, it's always 'now'. So everything we call time actually happens now. But that now is everything that exists, it's not a separate compartment.

That's not an illusion nor a theory, it's the fact. So what is your question now? What's the problem you're trying to work out?

bangstrom » May 5th, 2020, 12:24 am wrote:You are right that light is emitted to randomly scattered particles but the non-randon nature of emission means that the transmission of a quantum of energy does not, and can not, take place until a non-local connection has been established between the emitting and absorbing atoms so the absorbing atom is an active part of the emission and not an accidental target.

It seems to me that the most controversial part of your statement is that “the transmission of a quantum of energy does not, and can not, take place until a non-local connection has been established between the emitting and absorbing atoms."

rajnz00 » May 4th, 2020, 3:32 pm wrote: How are these “observations” confirmed? Again how is simultaneous participation confirmed?

bangstrom wrote:There is a body of evidence that either directly or indirectly confirms the observation that light energy transfers as if prescient of its destination. This is possible if an emitting atom has a simultaneous interaction with an atom receptive to the emission.

This is also possible if the supposed prescience has some other explanation, such as the light getting to “know” its destination (whatever you mean by that) at the time it reaches it’s destination in some yet unexplained way.

The most direct evidence can be found in quantum experiments involving tests the Wheeler delayed choice experiment or the quantum eraser experiment.

I had a look at the wheeler delayed choice experiment, and from what I could make out from a quick perusal, it seems to be about wave particle duality. I also had a quick look at the quantum laser experiment, and it says that “A very common misunderstanding about this experiment is that it may be used to communicate information instantaneously between two detectors.”

But in any case there seem to be different interpretations of the results and nowhere do they seem to reach the emphatic conclusion that “the transmission of a quantum of energy does not, and can not, take place until a non-local connection has been established between the emitting and absorbing atoms” that you have made.

Electrons in the present emit energy to future electrons and receive energy from electrons in the past.

Where did you get that from? You haven’t established your reasoning to get this statement from your previous statements.

bangstrom wrote:All light we observe comes to us from our past. Sunlight arrives from the sun 500 seconds in our past and star light can can be from years or many centuries in our past and it works both ways. Light emitted from our present arrives at some point in our future.

Shouldn’t that be that all light we observe comes from someone else’s past? Not our past?

Wouldn’t that be natural if the present is continually slipping away into the past?

If we observe the sun now, then that observation is of the sun 500 seconds ago because it took light that much time to arrive at our observation. If some one was at the distance of the sun observing us, he wouldn't he be observing our past and not our future?

Faradave » 05 May 2020, 02:35 wrote: Zero interval separation is an exact, invariant measure of the 4D separation of two events which may communicate by light. It is contact, but it is unintuitive because it is velocity-dependent contact, specifically c-dependent contact.

The problem is in the definition of 'contact'. In relativity, the closest we come to physical contact is simultaneous and co-located, which defines it in an invariant way for all inertial frames. This is also true for quantum field theory, although not for many interpretations of quantum physics.

Once we go into collapsing wave functions, then everything seems in contact with everything else and also with nothing - not my cup of tea.

FD wrote:If we're discussing a block universe, we're discussing 4D. I made the undeniable case that in 4D the infinite majority of radial contact pathways to any arbitrary event must be non-classical (i.e. have a temporal component)

I have two problems with this. In 4D spacetime, temporal does not mean "radial" - even in positively curved spaces.

Secondly, a temporal component does not imply "non-classical" - classical mechanics incorporates time. Your statement apparently comes from the misconception above.

Since this is not a private theory section, misconceptions need to be corrected, but that consumes a disproportionate amount of time - compared to what I perceive as the benefits for this community. I will bow out of further discussion of these aspects and leave it to others to uphold the canon.

bangstrom » 04 May 2020, 19:28 wrote:SR tells us that events separated by space are also separated by time so two otherwise simultaneous events can never be observed as simultaneous. How can you tell if the observed signal time was due to the ever-present spacetime between two locations or due to the time it took the photon to travel through space.

From precisely in-between them, I will observe the events simultaneously. I can tell that the two events were not causally connected, but must have happened randomly at the same time. This is the standard physics of today.