Relativity theory and the absolute

[Sean]

Rather old notes trying to argue for there being an absolute behind the world of phenomena with relative values...

The Buddhists can further point out however that, as demonstrated in Einstein's Theory of Relativity, all motion without exception is relative an there is in fact then no physical universal reference frame, such as, in the above analogy, a ground, from which it can all ultimately be measured that scientists previous to him had assumed to exist. There is no physical unchanging or non-moving position in the world. The Indians' viewpoint is to say that an object may have another object moving relative to it but if the first object is also to be said to be moving then there has to be a ground, or something, that it is moving relative to: just as the second object needs the first in order for it to be said that it is moving, the first needs something in exactly the same way: something at some point must just not be moving. It is true that this argument for the existence of the substantive Self by analogy with a need for a non-moving position is at odds with Einstein. As the Indians argue however, it is indeed the case that there has to be a non-moving position or universal reference frame in the world from which all motion can ultimately be measured because although all motion itself is discovered to be relative- the complete system of it as a whole has still crucially to be measured from a, now higher order, non-moving position. Einstein's entire theory is founded on the acceptance of the view that not everything in the world can be relative but that there must be an absolute, consisting in such a position; he is no exception in this respect to the line of scientists and thinkers before him. It would be inconsistent to say that everything was relative because there would be at least the non-relative truth that everything is relative. It is merely that the assumption held since Newton that the non-moving position is a physical one is false because Einstein shows that the very nature of all physical objects, such as grounds, themselves are wholly among the relative features of change of the world, and of course the non-moving position the Indians argue for is then not a physical one. If the Indians postulated their Self, the non-moving position or the absolute, as anything physical this would then make it part of the relative realm and not the absolute. All Einstein does is to replace the universal reference frame or the absolute consisting in the previous idea of something physical, which was held to the ether- and unmoving, frictionless substance permeating all space, with the more abstract idea of the non-physical laws of physics. The relative realm, Einstein shows, in fact comprises not just the changing states of the matter of all physical objects but also the very value of the matter itself, and along with even the values of energy, space and time; they can all change, hence making th4m inherently relative, and so non can constitute the true universal reference frame, the backcloth or absolute against which to measure the change in this realm. Conversely however the laws of physics are forever without change because of the fact that actually they have nothing to change to: because they are the foundation of the world if they changed everything else would change with them and no change as such could be detected. Nothing can change relative to itself; the idea of change becomes meaningless here. Where the universal reference frame consisting in the laws of physics is to be found is actually in one's own position, or anyone's- regardless of how one appears to be moving relative to other objects. The non-moving position is imply always one's own position; one appears stationary and unchanging to oneself and the laws of physics here are the same as those for all other objects, moving and changing or otherwise. No matter what kind of change at all is happening around oneself there must constantly exist a changeless absolute level in one's position in order to ground it all. This non-moving position consisting in no more than the laws of physics- the absolute here, is the Self or consciousness- within oneself, the root of one's position, because as this is the ultimate position from which all motion takes place, it is accordingly also that from which all observation- and hence consciousness, of motion, change or anything, takes place.

Although without something physical comprising the universal reference frame or the absolute like the ether all motion indeed then becomes relative, the non-physical laws of physics of one's own position are instead to be taken as the absolute because one's position is no more relative than all other positions- all positions are equivalent. The absolute has to be something abstract and non-physical since it is the same thing as the abstract Self and, in line with Vedic monism where the relative realm is only the absolute realm in relative form, it is in the very foundation of one's relative position in the relative realm that the absolute realm is to be found- the laws of physics. (Ie the transcendent is immanent.) A complete account of the laws of physics that physicists are working towards is the unified field- the foundation or essence of the relative realm, and explanations of physical reality by science will indeed stop here because one is making reference to the truth, not to anything in the relative realm which will always require further explanation and discussion. It also seems however that the unified field will never be described in full just because of the fact that it is the absolute and the Self: it is the foundation of the world and therefore constitutes our basis from which all the relative realm may then be described or theorized about. It cannot itself be subject to such description- it is just the primary field of being or 'is'ness. To describe something one must occupy a position separate to it and this is impossible with the Self since it is what people, and all things, ultimately are. A description of the fundamentals of reality or the unified field would itself be part of the reality and so, because such description will then inevitably exclude itself from the description, it will always be less than full or objective; one cannot stop outside of reality to acquire its complete discursive description. One can only experience or be the fundamental level of reality or the Self, not really describe it. The mind cannot be seen to be constituted by its relative levels aloe because there is always more to reality than discursive description in that a position separate to this is always required for it to be carried out. Accordingly there is always more to reality than the change, or characteristics, of the relative realm that description only ever and can only ever describe and it is further indeed the case that that which takes note of change cannot itself be changing. No matter what the state of the relative world or mind is, the unchanging Self must exist, underlying it all. The unchanging absolute exists in order for the relative realm to have something ultimately to be relative to; it is not possible for everything to be relative.

[nut-job]

The idea that all motion is relative is not due to Einstein, it goes back to Galileo and Newton.  Einstein fixed the transformation equations that convert quantities from one reference frame to another to make them consistent with the equations of electrodynamics.  The nature of these transformation equations led him to conclude that time is not an absolute quantity.

[Sean]

Yes, not only motion but matter, energy, space and time are also relative. But in order to establish this he had to have something that wasn't relative, a more abstract absolute- the speed of light or laws of physics (or common sense).

[nut-job]

Yes, not only motion but matter, energy, space and time are also relative. But in order to establish this he had to have something that wasn't relative, a more abstract absolute- the speed of light or laws of physics (or common sense).

All that stuff doesn't change the fact that you have misrepresented Einstein's contribution and that there are false statements about Newton's physics in your essay. 

Newton knew that there are an infinite number of reference frames that could be used to describe mechanics, but not all reference frames are valid "inertial" frames.  You can tell if you are rotating or acceleration with respect to the universe.  This idea remains in Einstein's formulation.

[Sean]

Newton thought there was only one true reference frame- the ether: this was the pre-Einstein idea of the absolute. What Einstein does is not to abolish the absolute in his unfortunately named theory but just to relocate it in more abstract terms. Terms that also refer us to the existence of a self...

[nut-job]

Newton invoked the idea of aether with reference to his theory of light and speculated that it could be involved in transmitting the gravitational force.  He considered it a material that occupied space.  His theory of mechanics was independent of any reference frame.

[Sean]

No it blinking wasn't. The point of the Michelson-Morely experiment was to find the earth's movement relative to the ether, which was the universal reference necessarily assumed by pre-relativistic physics. It's the finite speed of light or potential of energy that means spacetime must be relativized.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the finite speed of light . . .

Why does light have a "finite" speed? Is that merely a physical limitation (where we can imagine it "going" faster although it actually does not), or is it logically impossible for light to "go" any faster? And is it possible for something other than light to travel faster than light, and if not why not?

[Sean]

It's logically impossible.

[Sydney Grew]

It's logically impossible.

I see. Its limited speed is part of the definition of light then. But it would still be possible to imagine oneself travelling from one side of the universe to the other at a speed faster than light's, as long as no actual light was involved in the process, would it?

[Sean]

No.

The universe is more peculiar than that.

Fred Hoyle the late offbeat theoretical physicist argued that the universe was designed to be alienating and isolating, to keep civilizations away from each other...

[Sydney Grew]

No.

The universe is more peculiar than that.

You would agree though that it is possible to speak of a "place" a long way "away" - say 6,000,000,000,000 miles away, a distance light is said to cover in "a year"?

That is a long way but not particularly long in astronomical terms, and not different in principle from "just down the street." The concepts "light" and "time" would not differ in the two cases. Would it not be possible to think of - at least to imagine - ourselves somehow nipping over there for a cup of tea and nipping back the same day? Would all the "gravitation" between here and there necessarily prevent it?

[nut-job]

No it blinking wasn't. The point of the Michelson-Morely experiment was to find the earth's movement relative to the ether, which was the universal reference necessarily assumed by pre-relativistic physics. It's the finite speed of light or potential of energy that means spacetime must be relativized.

That's not so.  Although Newton invoked the ether in an attempt to explain certain phenomena in optics his mechanics is fully relativistic with respect to spatial reference frame.   The only necessary distinction (which is preserved in special relativity and reinterpreted in general relativity) is between an inertial and non-inertial reference frame.  The ether which M-M were looking for was a construct of the 19th century, postulated to explain the phonemena predicted by the Maxwell Equations.

[nut-job]

I see. Its limited speed is part of the definition of light then. But it would still be possible to imagine oneself travelling from one side of the universe to the other at a speed faster than light's, as long as no actual light was involved in the process, would it?

The fact that light travels at the same speed in all circumstances is an empirical fact.  This fact was used by Einstein as the basis for formulating his theory of relativity.  According to this theory, the amount of energy required to accelerate an object with non-zero mass to the speed of light is infinite.  It is therefore impossible to exceed the speed of light.  In modern physics this rule has been generalized to the idea that it is impossible to transmit information faster than the speed of light, although here we are venturing into quantum mechanics.

[bwv 1080]

where the relative realm is only the absolute realm in relative form, it is in the very foundation of one's relative position in the relative realm that the absolute realm is to be found

well that clears things up for me

[aquablob]

In modern physics this rule has been generalized to the idea that it is impossible to transmit *meaningful*information faster than the speed of light, although here we are venturing into quantum mechanics.

(Entanglement / quantum "teleportation")

[nut-job]

(Entanglement / quantum "teleportation")

I'm not sure what the opposite, meaningless information, would be.

[aquablob]

I'm not sure what the opposite, meaningless information, would be.

Look it up!

[Josquin des Prez]

Maybe Einstein got it all wrong:

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/incompetent%20science.htm

It might explain why modern physics is starting to increasingly sound like science fiction. 

[drogulus]

     There's an interesting article in Scientific American about the effort to reconcile quantum mechanics and special relativity.

      Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity

      From the article:

     Return of the Repressed

The first serious scientific engagement with the EPR argument came (after 30 years of more or less complete neglect) in a famous 1964 paper by the extraordinary Irish physicist John S. Bell. From Bell's work it emerged that Bohr was wrong that nothing was wrong with his understanding of quantum mechanics and that Einstein was wrong about what was wrong with Bohr's understanding. To take in what was actually wrong involves abandoning the idea of locality.

The crucial question is whether the nonlocalities that at least appear to be present in the quantum-mechanical algorithm are merely apparent or something more. Bell seems to have been the first person to ask himself precisely what that question means. What could make genuine physical nonlocalities distinct from merely apparent ones? He reasoned that if any manifestly and completely local algorithm existed that made the same predictions for the outcomes of experiments as the quantum-mechanical algorithm does, then Einstein and Bohr would have been right to dismiss the nonlocalities in quantum mechanics as merely an artifact of that particular formalism. Conversely, if no algorithm could avoid nonlocalities, then they must be genuine physical phenomena. Bell then analyzed a specific entanglement scenario and concluded that no such local algorithm was mathematically possible.

And so the actual physical world is nonlocal. Period.
     

     I wonder how much my aversion to quantum mechanics is simply my general dislike of pursuing questions I don't know how to answer, or the proto-Buddhist anti-realism of Bohr and Heisenberg. The article addresses this (not my aversion , but a reason for having it).