Vinaire's Blog

Reference: http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

NOTE: Einstein’s statements are in black italics. My understanding follows in bold color italics.

.

The Field

In Newtonian mechanics, space and time play a dual rôle. First, they play the part of carrier or frame for things that happen in physics, in reference to which events are described by the space co-ordinates and the time. In principle, matter is thought of as consisting of “material points”, the motions of which constitute physical happening. When matter is thought of as being continuous, this is done as it were provisionally in those cases where one does not wish to or cannot describe the discrete structure. In this case small parts (elements of volume) of the matter are treated similarly to material points, at least in so far as we are concerned merely with motions and not with occurrences which, at the moment, it is not possible or serves no useful purpose to attribute to motions (e.g. temperature changes, chemical processes).

In Newtonian Mechanics space and time act as the frame of reference in which matter is treated as a point and its motion is described by space and time coordinates. It is not possible to describe changes, such as, chemical and temperature, that cannot be represented as physical motions.

The second rôle of space and time was that of being an “inertial system”. From all conceivable systems of reference, inertial systems were considered to be advantageous in that, with respect to them, the law of inertia claimed validity.

Within the space-time reference frame the material points have inertia, which follows certain laws of motion. 

In this, the essential thing is that “physical reality”, thought of as being independent of the subjects experiencing it, was conceived as consisting, at least in principle, of space and time on one hand, and of permanently existing material points, moving with respect to space and time, on the other. The idea of the independent existence of space and time can be expressed drastically in this way: If matter were to disappear, space and time alone would remain behind (as a kind of stage for physical happening).

Here space and time are assumed to be independent of the material points that are existing permanently within it. 

.

Earlier notes by Vinaire:

The Euclidean geometry is matter-centric as Einstein describes it so nicely here, “In this case small parts (elements of volume) of the matter are treated similarly to material points…”

We may define the matter-centric viewpoint as, “Unconsciously using material characteristics as one’s reference to understand what is there.” This is the case with Euclidean geometry. This has also been the case with most of science.

We assume that “physical reality” is independent of the subjects experiencing it. But the subjects experiencing it are also part of existence. Therefore, we need to expand definition of existence to include not only matter but also the awareness of matter. This adds to existence another dimension. This dimension is abstraction. Conceptualizing is part of abstraction. The last abstraction shall be the ability to conceptualize.

Space forms the background of “existence”. Time forms the background of “change in existence”. We may say that abstraction forms the background of “nature of existence”. There seems to be a whole gradient of existence from matter to awareness. Awareness seems to be a subtle form of motion. This needs to be explored further.

Thus, if matter were to disappear, there still may remain a finer form of existence.

The existence has a tendency to stay as it is, for it resists change. This is the law of inertia. Space and time form an “inertial system” as the basis of this law. Where does the change come from that is resisted by the law of inertia? It may be the change due to restoring forces as described at The Logical Structure of the Universe (Part 1) – Static to Kinetic.

.

Previous: Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 7)

Next:  Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 9)

.

Reference: http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

NOTE: Einstein’s statements are in black italics. My understanding follows in bold color italics.

.

All these space-like concepts already belong to pre-scientific thought, along with concepts like pain, goal, purpose, etc. from the field of psychology. Now it is characteristic of thought in physics, as of thought in natural science generally, that it endeavours in principle to make do with “space-like” concepts alone, and strives to express with their aid all relations having the form of laws. The physicist seeks to reduce colours and tones to vibrations, the physiologist thought and pain to nerve processes, in such a way that the psychical element as such is eliminated from the causal nexus of existence, and thus nowhere occurs as an independent link in the causal associations. It is no doubt this attitude, which considers the comprehension of all relations by the exclusive use of only space-like concepts as being possible in principle, that is at the present time understood by the term “materialism” (since “matter” has lost its rôle as a fundamental concept).

.

Earlier notes by Vinaire:

By “space-like” concepts, Einstein refers to the simple fundamental concepts to which all other concepts reduce. Concepts from the field of psychology are quite complex but they do seem to reduce to space, time and abstraction.

Science focuses on space-like concepts to come up with fundamental relationships having the form of laws. What Einstein refers to as “elimination of psychical element” is actually the removal of logical inconsistencies in conceptualization. These logical inconsistencies come about as a result of “personal filters”, such as, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, assumptions and blind faith.

When Einstein refers to “exclusive use of only space-like concepts”, he means“exclusive use of logic in conceptualization”, which is the characteristic of “Dimension of Abstraction”.

The word “materialism” is a misnomer. It does not mean the supremacy of the material world. It simply points to the objectivity brought about by the use of the 5-dimensional continuum of the universe.

.

.

Previous: Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 5)

Next:  Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 7)

.

Reference: http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

NOTE: Einstein’s statements are in black italics. My understanding follows in bold color italics.

.

What do we mean by rendering objective the concept of time? Let us consider an example. A person A (“I”) has the experience “it is lightning”. At the same time the person A also experiences such a behaviour of the person B as brings the behaviour of B into relation with his own experience “it is lightning”. Thus it comes about that A associates with B the experience “it is lightning”. For the person A the idea arises that other persons also participate in the experience “it is lightning”. “It is lightning” is now no longer interpreted as an exclusively personal experience, but as an experience of other persons (or eventually only as a “potential experience”). In this way arises the interpretation that “it is lightning”, which originally entered into the consciousness as an “experience”, is now also interpreted as an (objective) “event”. It is just the sum total of all events that we mean when we speak of the “real external world”.

Objective concept of time comes from the actual sequence of changes in material dimensions. We needn’t get into a discussion about whether the observed sequence of changes is also the actual sequence of changes. That is a whole another subject. As far as physics is concerned there is parallax of time between two different locations because of the finite speed of light. This parallax of time can be figured out easily.

Objective is that which is perceived directly through physical perceptions. Abstraction of physical events is also objective as long as that abstraction is continuous, harmonious and consistent with the physical perception of those events. The presence of assumptions that introduce discontinuity, disharmony and inconsistency in physical perceptions renders their abstraction subjective.

Einstein’s assumption that there can be unbounded “empty space” cannot be objective because when matter is absent, the dimensions are absent too and there can be no space.

We have seen that we feel ourselves impelled to ascribe a temporal arrangement to our experiences, somewhat as follows. If b is later than a and c later than b then c is also later than a (“sequence of experiences”).

Now what is the position in this respect with the “events” which we have associated with the experiences? At first sight it seems obvious to assume that a temporal arrangement of events exists which agrees with the temporal arrangement of the experiences. In general, and unconsciously this was done, until sceptical doubts made themselves felt.  In order to arrive at the idea of an objective world, an additional constructive concept still is necessary: the event is localised not only in time, but also in space.

An event may appear to be localized in time and space but it is continuous, harmonious and consistent with rest of the space and time. This is evident with the phenomena of light that fills the whole space with the vibrations proceeding from that event. 

In the previous paragraphs we have attempted to describe how the concepts space, time and event can be put psychologically into relation with experiences. Considered logically, they are free creations of the human intelligence, tools of thought, which are to serve the purpose of bringing experiences into relation with each other, so that in this way they can be better surveyed.

Physical perceptions and their abstractions are what they are. Our psychological experiences needn’t be any different if we maintain continuity, harmony and consistency in observation and do not introduce assumptions.

The attempt to become conscious of the empirical sources of these fundamental concepts should show to what extent we are actually bound to these concepts. In this way we become aware of our freedom, of which, in case of necessity, it is always a difficult matter to make sensible use.

Empirically, we are part of the phenomena that we are perceiving. Objectivity is determined by continuity, harmony and consistency between the phenomena observed and the observer.

.

Earlier notes by Vinaire:

An experience becomes “objective” to the degree it moves beyond personal experience and becomes a widely shared experience. But all that one needs to do to move beyond personal experience is to get rid of personal filters – bias, prejudice, fixed idea, assumption and blind faith. As these filters are removed one’s experience becomes “objective”.

The “real external world” is the sum total of all events. The experience of the sequence of events determines the experience of time. However, the sequence of events may be experienced differently at different locations because of the finite speed at which light travels. In order to arrive at the idea of an objective world one must experience the events in both space and time together.

Objectivity requires that a logical consistency must be maintained among conceptual relationships, while ensuring continuity among physical relationships. Subjectivity is introduced when assumptions are made that violate the requirement of continuity and consistency.

.

Previous: Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 3)

Next:  Relativity and the Problem of Space (Part 5)

.