Reference: Essays on Substance
Special Relativity & Time
The following essay is based on Chapter III, Section 1 “Astronomer Royal’s Time” of the book, “The Nature of the Physical World” by A. S. EDDINGTON. Eddington conducted an expedition to observe the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 on the Island of Príncipe that provided one of the earliest confirmations of general relativity, and he became known for his popular expositions and interpretations of the theory.
Eddington starts this section by pointing out how time is perceived for everyday use is so very different from the time we sense subjectively. The fact is that the time for everyday use is based on the behavior of matter; but the time that we sense subjectively is based on the behavior of our thoughts. We may say that changes in matter provide the perception of “matter-time” for everyday use; and changes in thought provide the perception of “thought-time” that we have consciousness of.
The matter-time has been woven into the structure of the classical physical scheme. But it is not the same as the thought-time that we are conscious of. The difference becomes obvious when we are waiting in the doctor’s office; the time appears to pass very slowly.
Eddington talks about how Einstein’s theory links the nature of time to the nature of space. This means matter-time has the same relationship with matter-space, as thought-time has with thought-space. Eddington identifies thought-time as “interval,” but it is actually “thought-interval” and not “matter-interval.” When we represent the enduring world as a three-dimensional space leaping from instant to instant through time, we are relating matter-space to matter-interval, and not to thought-interval.
Eddington then considers the situation, “If two people meet twice they must have lived the same time between the two meetings, even if one of them has travelled to a distant part of the universe and back in the interim.” In this case, the thought-interval will be very different for the two people, but their matter-interval will be the same.
Eddington then states, “If the speed of travel is very great we may find that, whilst the stay-at-home individual has aged 70 years, the traveler has aged 1 year.” This is obviously false because body would respond to the matter-interval, which is the same for both individuals. This confusion is due to incomplete math of the special theory of relativity, which does not take into account the relationship between speed and rigidity of substance.
Matter will not stay matter at terrific speeds. It will reduce to electromagnetic radiation. The math of Special relativity is applicable only within the range of speeds that matter can have; and that too approximately.
It is interesting to see an established scientist misinterpreting the incomplete mathematics of a theory.
.
Comments
Over the years it became obvious to me that time is strictly a sentient method to keep track of events. In fact we keep time by measuring the passage of events, whether its the mechanical clock or the solid state clock. Then we compare those ( somewhat ) constant rate events to events around us. It became obvious to me, that time is just a bookkeeping method for us, but in reality all that exists and moves is in the here and now. We live in a caldron of activity and jostling. Probabilty can possibly be the only constant in the universe. This viewpoint questions the existence of the concept of energy and many other postulates relating to the existence of time. In my view if sentients did not exist, by default existence would not exist as well. The proof of that is death.
The starting point of my reasoning is sensations. We then give meaning to these sensations. To be real, the meanings we give must be continuous, consistent and harmonious.