Beyond relativity

[initiate]

My point here is very simple: What if relativity and all of its implications, were just the product of context?

 

What if we shifted the very notions and axioms that physics rests upon. Why is time important? How is then and now different? What if we did consider distance in a different context? With a different deffinition? Making such claims as: there is no difference between point A and point B, even though A=/B, the difference might be just... how we think of it.

 

Why is distance importat? Why is distance relevant? On what do we base any given proposition for its relevance? What is distance? (in a spatial sense)

 

My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvity in any way, but more, to try to expand on it, to see under what kind of train of thought it was concieved, what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more. If the ground itself on which it is standing is also dependent on even lower ground (not the newtonian ground).

 

Ill leave it at that.

[ajb]

My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvity in any way, but more, to try to expand on it, to see under what kind of train of thought it was concieved, what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more. If the ground itself on which it is standing is also dependent on even lower ground (not the newtonian ground).

From a modern perspective the starting place of Einsteinian relativity is that space-time is a four dimensional smooth manifold equipped with a pseudo-Riemannian metric of Lorentzian signature (so -+++ or +--- depending on your conventions). You then add to this the simplest geometric Lagrangian you can think of and a law like the Lorentz force, 'test particles follow geodesics' and you more-or-less have it. There are some technical things like energy conditions and so on, but the core of relativity is this manifold structure with a metric.

 

The manifold structure is important. It allows us to describe the physics locally in terms of coordinates, but it such a way that nothing really depends on these choices. Moreover, it encodes a form of the equivalence principal as being able to find local coordinates such that at a point the metric is the Minkowski metric. The metric is also vital as it gives a definition of the 'length' of a curve and defines the causal structure on the space-time.

 

In short it is all very natural smooth geometry.

[swansont]

My point here is very simple: What if relativity and all of its implications, were just the product of context?

 

What if we shifted the very notions and axioms that physics rests upon. Why is time important? How is then and now different? What if we did consider distance in a different context? With a different deffinition? Making such claims as: there is no difference between point A and point B, even though A=/B, the difference might be just... how we think of it.

 

I think if you investigate a little you'll find that many of these ideas have already been tried and found to be wanting. Having the rules of physics be different from place to place, for example: conservation of momentum relies on the symmetry of the Lagrangian under a spatial translation. If you lose that symmetry, you lose conservation of momentum, and subsequently Newton's laws of motion. There are also implications regarding absolute rest, which runs afoul of relativity.

 

You are free to try and come up with a new set of laws of motion and re-do physics without the conservation laws we have in place. But that's the price — you would have to reconstruct basically all of physics. Have fun storming the castle.

[Phi for All]

My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvity in any way, but more, to try to expand on it, to see under what kind of train of thought it was concieved, what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more. If the ground itself on which it is standing is also dependent on even lower ground (not the newtonian ground).

 

What do you think is missing? What foundational ground is in question here? And how is this NOT trying to refute relativity?

[Strange]

Also, just asking "what if" is not very valuable unless there is an alternative to be proposed.

[swansont]

Also, just asking "what if" is not very valuable unless there is an alternative to be proposed.

Depends on the nature of the "what if" IMO. If you can change a single variable, then it can be informative — that's close to what scientists do all the time. But tossing entire pillars of the foundational concepts means overhauling too much. It's so open-ended there's no way to answer with any specifics.

[Strange]

Depends on the nature of the "what if" IMO. If you can change a single variable, then it can be informative

 

True. But the OP doesn't seem to be suggesting what to change to just that maybe it should be changed...

[swansont]

 

True. But the OP doesn't seem to be suggesting what to change to just that maybe it should be changed...

 

I agree. This thread's suggestion is of the "way too open-ended to be useful" variety.

[initiate]

woah you guys, now take it easy, i see that somebody even rated my argument with only 1 star (though that's perfectly ok).

 

It is very incomplete, open ended and ambiguous, it was intended to be so.

 

"It's so open-ended there's no way to answer with any specifics."

 

Thats the point. You guys are too preocupied with trying to extrapolate and interpret my suggestion directly into scientific literature (and to answer "any specifics"), and that says something about you all.

[Strange]

So what was the purpose of your post, then?

[Bignose]

Thats the point. You guys are too preocupied with trying to extrapolate and interpret my suggestion directly into scientific literature (and to answer "any specifics"), and that says something about you all.

Is that something that the thread is full of scientists who appreciate the scientific method and the process of making testable predicts and comparing them to measurement?

 

Look, it is great to have ideas. It is great to have far off, wondrous, ponderous, incomplete, ambiguous ideas. These flights-of-fancy are often the kernel of great scientific ideas. But they, by themselves, aren't science. Because of all the reasons given above.

 

And when you're on a science forum, people kind of, you know, expect science. Not just daydreaming. If that is what you're into, there are other forums on the internet that are more accepting. Here, we apply stricter rules to the posts in the science-based sections.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Bignose

[Strange]

It is very incomplete, open ended and ambiguous, it was intended to be so.

 

It is also entirely negative. All you have said is "what if time and space aren't fundamental". You haven't suggested something else. For example, that actually energy and momentum are fundamental and space-time is emergent. Or that our perceptions are a side effect of a battle of wills between the unicorns and turtles. Or ... something. Come on, man. Don't be so lazy.

[MWresearch]

My point here is very simple: What if relativity and all of its implications, were just the product of context?

 

What if we shifted the very notions and axioms that physics rests upon. Why is time important? How is then and now different? What if we did consider distance in a different context? With a different deffinition? Making such claims as: there is no difference between point A and point B, even though A=/B, the difference might be just... how we think of it.

 

Why is distance importat? Why is distance relevant? On what do we base any given proposition for its relevance? What is distance? (in a spatial sense)

 

My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvity in any way, but more, to try to expand on it, to see under what kind of train of thought it was concieved, what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more. If the ground itself on which it is standing is also dependent on even lower ground (not the newtonian ground).

 

Ill leave it at that.

When you say relativity, do you secretly mean special relativity and general relativity, where time dilation and length contraction are important factors? Or are you referring to the very act of taking on a different point of view?

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[xyzt]

woah you guys, now take it easy, i see that somebody even rated my argument with only 1 star (though that's perfectly ok).

 

It is very incomplete, open ended and ambiguous, it was intended to be so.

 

"It's so open-ended there's no way to answer with any specifics."

 

Thats the point. You guys are too preocupied with trying to extrapolate and interpret my suggestion directly into scientific literature (and to answer "any specifics"), and that says something about you all.

Thank you for clarifying your position. This is clearly a fringe thread, does not belong in the main forum.

[Enteroctopus]

"Beyond" implies "in addition to" not "instead of." Relativity is "beyond Newton" because it adds certain mathematical factors to existing physics. It in no way disproves Newtonian physics, it simply improves the accuracy of predictions at certain extremes, namely velocity (as in SR at near light speed) and gravitation (as in GR near neutron stars, black holes or similar).

 

I don't see much need to go "beyond" Relativity unless it is an effort to reconcile QM, and for that String Theory, Quantum Gravity and the like are a good start. At least read Brian Greene to get an intro to that stuff, whether you believe it or not is up to you, but no sense reinventing the wheel when lots of smart people have been working at this for years.

[initiate]

 

It is also entirely negative. All you have said is "what if time and space aren't fundamental". You haven't suggested something else. For example, that actually energy and momentum are fundamental and space-time is emergent. Or that our perceptions are a side effect of a battle of wills between the unicorns and turtles. Or ... something. Come on, man. Don't be so lazy.

 

Because im not sure either what i am trying to find here. I hoped you guys would be more positive when presented with deep abstractions, after all you're scientists, or at least educated ppl, or so i like to think.

 

I more or less hoped you people would play along and give similar phylosophical input to try to collectively build something more solid.

 

And if youre interested in what i have to say, then its NOT my responsibility to meet your demands of intellectual writing and discussion, and less with that attitude. YOU dont be lazy and try to add something of substance to the discussion rather than coming here with your -entirely negative- posture.

 

I agree. This thread's suggestion is of the "way too open-ended to be useful" variety.

 

You people really feel like you were some sort of authority that gets to declare what is intellectually valuable and what is not. Pretentious, and this is regardless of the kind content you judge.

Edited April 24, 2015 by initiate

[ajb]

Because im not sure either what i am trying to find here. I hoped you guys would be more positive when presented with deep abstractions, after all you're scientists, or at least educated ppl, or so i like to think.

I don't quite see your 'deep abstraction'.

 

Anyway, what do you want to discuss? Maybe the idea that space-time is emergent and not fundamental?

 

This idea has been suggested many times. The best idea so far is that space-time as we see it is really a macroscopic approximation in some quantum theory of gravity; something like a mean field approximation. People discuss this in the context of string theory. A quick search of the arXiv will reveal papers, but this is outside my area of expertise.

[swansont]

 

You people really feel like you were some sort of authority that gets to declare what is intellectually valuable and what is not. Pretentious, and this is regardless of the kind content you judge.

 

If you want to put it that way, I am "some sort of authority" on certain aspects of physics, and other people in the thread are in their own areas of work.

 

When you ask to "see under what kind of train of thought [relativity] was concieved(sic), what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more" there's a fairly strong implication that you haven't already looked at this in any great depth. But it would be a mistake to think that others haven't already done so.

[Phi for All]

 

I more or less hoped you people would play along and give similar phylosophical input to try to collectively build something more solid.

 

There are places on the web you can toss ideas around and plenty of people will "play along". This isn't one of them. We determined that, in order to insure the time we spend in discussion is meaningful, we need a higher level of rigor than those other sites.

 

We discuss science, plain and simple. We don't "play along" because we respect your time and intelligence. We think it's better to have the flaws in your idea pointed out early, so you either know what to fix or you realize your idea is completely wrong and you can stop wasting time on it.

 

So who is actually showing you more respect, the person who "plays along" with an idea in an area you may be ignorant about, or the person who tells it to you straight, and gives you the benefit of their learning?

[swansont]

We discuss science, plain and simple. We don't "play along" because we respect your time and intelligence. We think it's better to have the flaws in your idea pointed out early, so you either know what to fix or you realize your idea is completely wrong and you can stop wasting time on it.

 

Which is a mirror of how science plays out in real life. If you float an idea, you expect it to be critiqued. Pursuing an idea that's flawed is going to end up wasting time that could be spent on more fruitful ideas. It's better to identify the flaws early on and identify whether you need to abandon the idea or tweak it in some way. You can't take the criticism personally or you won't last, because most ideas are flawed. Most of the scientists I know (and certainly the ones I work with) embrace such criticism because they learn something from it, and learning is one of their prime motivational drivers.

[Phi for All]

 

Which is a mirror of how science plays out in real life. If you float an idea, you expect it to be critiqued. Pursuing an idea that's flawed is going to end up wasting time that could be spent on more fruitful ideas. It's better to identify the flaws early on and identify whether you need to abandon the idea or tweak it in some way. You can't take the criticism personally or you won't last, because most ideas are flawed. Most of the scientists I know (and certainly the ones I work with) embrace such criticism because they learn something from it, and learning is one of their prime motivational drivers.

 

Thanks very much, to you and all the other working science professionals who contribute their resources to the discussions here. We're a far cry from peer review, but we can only sustain the level of scientific rigor we have because of you pros and your generosity when it comes to knowledge.

[initiate]

Which is a mirror of how science plays out in real life. If you float an idea, you expect it to be critiqued. Pursuing an idea that's flawed is going to end up wasting time that could be spent on more fruitful ideas. It's better to identify the flaws early on and identify whether you need to abandon the idea or tweak it in some way. You can't take the criticism personally or you won't last, because most ideas are flawed. Most of the scientists I know (and certainly the ones I work with) embrace such criticism because they learn something from it, and learning is one of their prime motivational drivers.

 

Look i have absolutely no problem with you people coming to my face and saying: "i think youre totally wrong".

 

But coming here and declaring that:

 

I agree. This thread's suggestion is of the "way too open-ended to be useful" variety.

 

I mean the subject of this discussion is phylosophical, were not even arguing if something is correct or incorrect, you just want it to immediately jump into science or to relate to science.

 

Look, it is great to have ideas. It is great to have far off, wondrous, ponderous, incomplete, ambiguous ideas. These flights-of-fancy are often the kernel of great scientific ideas. But they, by themselves, aren't science. Because of all the reasons given above.

 

Well, that's the point. We're, or at least im not, discussing science, yet.

 

 

We discuss science, plain and simple. We don't "play along" because we respect your time and intelligence. We think it's better to have the flaws in your idea pointed out early, so you either know what to fix or you realize your idea is completely wrong and you can stop wasting time on it.

 

So who is actually showing you more respect, the person who "plays along" with an idea in an area you may be ignorant about, or the person who tells it to you straight, and gives you the benefit of their learning?

 

I have 2 responses for that: thanks and thats too much of being an apologist.

 

Just forget it. I saw this coming, I understand where you're coming from, because i understand relativity, for the most part (im an engineer), it just wont be fruitful, i guess im trying something too.... unconventional.

 

Finally, thanks to Ajb and Etereoctopus, I appreciate your input.

"You can't take the criticism personally or you won't last"

 

I take your criticism, but i think its criticism that just doesnt apply. It is the kind of criticism that if i were to come here with a mathematical theorem and you spotted flaws (and I would totally accept the criticism in such case). My rebuttals are of an argumentative nature, rather than scientific. You just mistook the nature of the discussion im trying to foment. But as you said, you want strict rigor, so ill let this discussion die out. Also you take the criticism as well.

Edited April 24, 2015 by initiate

[Mordred]

Might help if you explain what you feel is wrong with relativity. It's impossible to provide assistance without knowing your understanding on the subject

[andrewcellini]

I mean the subject of this discussion is phylosophical, were not even arguing if something is correct or incorrect, you just want it to immediately jump into science or to relate to science.

to be fair, this happens to be a science forum.

 

also one of the guidelines of this sub forum happens to be "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down."

[initiate]

to be fair, this happens to be a science forum.

 

also one of the guidelines of this sub forum happens to be "this is a science forum, and speculations are still to be discussed in that context. If it doesn't fit as a science discussion, or you refuse to discuss the idea as such, the thread will be closed down."

 

If you let the discussion evolve, its my expectation that it will eventually delve into science, or the shores of it.