Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Trying to Understand Relativity (part 10)

If the flow of time can be affected or altered by a physical phenomenon, then it seems necessary to establish some point of contact between time and physical matter.  For instance, if we say that the weight of an object here on Earth would be 1/16th of that weight if we were to move that object to the Moon, we are able to state this with the utmost confidence because we understand precisely how weight is a physical property of the object, and because we understand precisely how this property expresses itself through the object.  We understand that weight is a measurement of the force of gravity's interaction between the mass of the object and the mass of the Earth or the Moon.  Likewise, if we are to stake the claim that an object's duration can be affected by its velocity, then in the same manner, we need to either understand time as a property of the object, or understand how time can be affected by the object.  In either case, some connection between time and the object needs to be established.

Relativity addresses this problem by tying time to space, forming the unified concept of space-time.  According to Relativity, the mass of an object warps the space around it, and other objects caught in this curvature fall towards the object, creating the appearance of attraction which we call gravity.  Since time is interwoven with space, this warping of space causes a warping in time as well.  In the special circumstances of Relativity this seems to make a certain amount of intuitive sense.  We picture space as a flat plane, and time as a perpendicular dimension to that plane, represented perhaps by an arrow.  Normally, they pass at right angles to one another without disturbing each other, but when there is a warp in the plane of space, it causes a warp in the passage of time as well.

Evidence backs up the facts of this as well.  The warping of space was proven by taking photographs of the stars surrounding the sun during a solar eclipse.  The stars appeared to be slightly shifted in their positions because their light was passing through the warped region of space around the sun.  From the warping of space follows the warping of time.  The Earth is certainly a massive object, and as such, it warps space to a considerable degree, fortunately holding us and the atmosphere snugly to its surface.  In addition to warping space, it also warps time to an almost imperceptible degree.  The GPS satellites in orbit have to be recalibrated on a daily basis to account for the discrepancy.  These aren't just formulas on a chalkboard; these are genuine realities.  Due to the mass of the Earth, time really does run slightly slower here than it does out in space.

So where does this leave us?  In the previous post I brought the wave model to bear on all of this.  With this wave model I proposed that time existed entirely in change and motion.  I went on to speculate that the time dilation effect predicted by Relativity was really a uniform slowing of all motion.  Relativity, however, seems to have returned us to the notion that time exists independently of matter, as something aloof, as a dimension or medium through which change and motion occurs, rather than arising out of the change and motion itself.  Relativity couples time with space, rather than with the matter occupying that space, and there is plenty of evidence to support this union.

Once again, I'm thrown for a loop.  The wave model seemed to neatly provide the point of contact mentioned above.  If time was in the motion, then it seemed to make sense that accelerating one frame of reference to near the speed of light relative to another would cause a uniform regress of motion within the frames to account for the constancy of light.  The next step was to try and figure out exactly how this uniform regress could be caused by acceleration.  It seemed to a matter of calculating how the external and internal velocities balanced to compensate for the speed of light, and then time dilation would arise up out of this balance.  It would all be an adjustment of motion.

It all has an appealing simplicity, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.  I can't deny the connection between space and time.  It has been demonstrated clearly in theory, and in practice, and I'm not here to rewrite Relativity, but rather to understand it.  At the most, I would only propose a reinterpretation of the conclusions drawn from the theory.  So I pose the questions to you, the reader.  Does the space-time concept invalidate the wave model?  Is the hypothesis still worth pursuing anyway?  Is it possible that instead of space stealing time away from matter, perhaps space exists through matter in a similar way as I've proposed that time exists through matter?  The wave model suggests that change doesn't pass through time, but rather that time passes through change.  Likewise, is it possible that objects don't exist in space, but rather that space exists in objects?  Can space and time be unified on the ground of physical matter, as properties of that matter?  In other words, where do we go from here?

20 comments:

  1. I think I'll just stick to biology and leave space, time, and motion to you, oh wise one. I'm not certain I understand it enough to give any kind of valuable answer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is time on Earth slower or faster than on the satelites?

    Also, is there a way to differenciate by language the time I spend on Earth and the time I would be spending on the satelite? Or do we have to say Earth Time and Satellite Time? It seems that there should be a Time, call it Universal Time that our hypothetical observer experiences (although he would have to be ephemeral, massless and motionless) and every other Time which is described by its relationship with gravity and (relative) speed.

    This shit is confusing, and I'm not even addressing the validity off continuing incorporating the Wave Model. I don't know enough to give a worthwhile opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We throw everything in reverse and add in string theory, because it could tie everything together.

    Ahahahaha. I don't know what I talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What if ,like matter can be converted to energy by E=mc^2, you can convert space to time and vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In total ignorance, I'm ready to dive in head first. I want to respond to your question with another question, or rather several.

    Why the attempt to understand relativity? Does it need to be understood? If yes, who needs to understand it? When you say relativity, what is this thing anyhow? Is it a scientific theory which enables us to predict things? If so, why not just use it to predict things and not bother to understand it? Does understanding or not understanding relativity affect anything important?

    I'll shut up now. Perhaps they are just rhetorical questions. At any rate I don't want to burden you with the task of answering them.

    But it does seem to me that matter, space and time are connected, in ways that I'm happy to accept as mysterious.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Chanel: Biology is definitely not my strong suit. It's so...organic.

    @Doug: I think it's slower on Earth. And yes, this shit is confusing.

    @John Myste: Oh Lord. I'm not even going there.

    @Cyber: E=MC^2. That sounds familiar ;)

    @Vincent: Believe me. I ask myself the same questions whenever I post another one of these things. I never seem to get anywhere with it, and I definitely feel like I should just concede that it is and probably always will be completely over my head.

    There is, of course, no real need for me personally to understand Relativity. My life will go much the same way with or without it. I think it just intrigues me as a sort of puzzle. There are people though, who may have a practical interest in the matter. It's helped us establish our GPS network, and anyone in the future considering interstellar travel is going to have contend with it. Still, none of that is really my problem. I'm just a curious guy. I find it interesting, and yet very frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Plus people seem to get a kick out of these posts for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A funny read my wife got for me recently that I just started to mind munch is "How to survive in a science-fictional universe" not sure if you have heard about this book or not, but it is chock full of space and time and time machines.

    Understanding anything, let alone this, is vital in expanding our minds even further so that, one day, we put aside this to try and tackle other working theories, such as time machines and their proper usage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was just about to head over and read about your rejection slip.

    I haven't heard about that book, but it definitely sounds like my cup of tea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems to me that our concept of time is all linked to velocity. Even "space" moves. What if there was a place where there was absolutely no motion. No entropy. Complete stasis. Would time exist there? I suspect not. And would we destroy such a place by merely observing it, ala Heisenberg?

    Just tossing out random monkey wrenches.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, that's like the box I mentioned in the last post. It doesn't change at all. So how could you say that time was happening to the box? The only way you could track the passage of time for the box would be by comparing it to changes happening outside the box.

    It also leads me back to the clock that I mentioned in the comments below that post. Remember the silent ticks after the clock was removed? The question here, I guess, if there's still space without the clock, would there still be time, since the two are connected? And if so, then how does accelerating the clock to near the speed of light, or doing anything else to it, affect space and time if they're not connected at all or dependent on the clock?

    Does that make any sense?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I want to read Scott's survival book now. It almost reminds me of "How to Clone the Perfect Blonde," a not-bad book I picked up at the dollar store. For a dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Organic is better than theoretical. I operate much better in realities and not maybes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You have a point. On the other hand, theories have less of a formaldehyde smell....sometimes. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course the stasis box would end up being the next cryogenics craze. Rich men dying of something would have themselves put in stasis until a cure was found. They wouldn't have to thaw you out afterwards. Just turn it off and you walk out. One way time travel, for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ah, for a world of heads in jars...

    I like theoretical better than Chanel's facts. There is more of the "what if" factor.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, at least we know how to keep a head in a jar fresh, right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just have to do something about that annoying ammonia smell.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...