Re-thinking Einstein’ “simultaneity” without spacetime

In this article, I want to re-think Einstein’ “simultaneity” of events from the special relativity without spacetime. In my works (for instance my book 2016), I indicated that spacetime could not even exist. Also, I re-wrote both special and general relativity without spacetime. Here I want to furnish more details about Einstein’s simultaneity of events related to the special relativity.

Special relativity (for Einstein): Let me take his example with light for two passengers in the train with one wagon and a person on the pavement. Exactly in the middle of the wagon without windows (of the train), there is a light bulb. The length of the wagon is 10 meters, so there are 5 meters between each person and the bulb when the wagon is static state of the wagon. The wagon moves from left to the right with a continuous and constant speed, 60 km/hour. The bulb is turn on and according to the special relativity, those passengers (from wagon) would receive the light signal at the same time (since they do not know even wagon is in motion). The light has constant speed c independent of any observer (there are three observers in our case). However, the person on the pavement would perceive that the wagon is in motion in the direction of the right passenger, therefore, the distance travelled by light will be longer than the distance travelled by light for the left passenger. So, for him, the passenger from the right will receive the light before the passenger from the left. Einstein concludes that both cases are correct, the phenomena of simultaneity is not the same for all three observers.

My viewpoint: let us suppose those two passengers are in a rocket of 100 meters travelling with constant, rectilinear motion with the same speed of the wagon. Maybe those two passengers from the rocket would “observe” the light at the same time. However, if the rocket is 10.000 meters and travels with half the speed of light c, c/2, then, those two passengers will not receive the light at the same moment!

For a more realistic but very similar example, we can consider each passenger is a different rocket having the same speed, c/2, flying in the same direction, on the same line, the distance between these two rockets being 10.000 meters. Between their rockets there is another rocket (the same line of motion, same constant speed) in which there is a strong bulb of light. Accordingly to principle of relativity, all those three rockets are static one in relation to other two. The light is turn on in the middle rocket and, after some time, obviously, the pilot from the left rocket will receive the light-signal before the pilot from the right since the distance between the middle rocket and the right rocket remains the same, but the distance between the left rocket and the place when the light has been turn on becomes shorter (since the left-rocket becomes closer and closer to the point when light has been turn on) and the distance between the right rocket and the place when the light has been turn on becomes longer (since the right-rocket moves in opposite direction with light motion). So, in this analog example, we notice that those two pilots do not receive the light signals at the same moment.

Light viewpoint: The pilots have special instrument measuring the wavelength of light, therefore, they can deduce the distances between them and the bulb turn on. Surely, those two pilots will measure different wavelengths of the light emitted by the bulb in the middle rocket. If both passengers from Einstein’s train/wagon have very precise instruments of measuring wavelengths of that light, they will measure different wavelengths of the same light. Surely, there could not be the same wavelengths since from the viewpoint of light, the distances travelled by light are different: for the right passenger, the distance travelled by light is longer than that the distance travelled by light for the left passenger. The right passenger run from the light (speed c), the left passenger comes closer to the light (speed c): both distances become shorter in each fraction of second but the distance between the left passenger and light becomes shorter than the distance between the right passenger and the light during the first moments; it means, the left passenger “interacts” with light before the right passenger. Therefore, the passenger from the wagon to do not receive light at the same moment. Einstein’s example (given by Brian Greene in his book 2003, The Elegant Universe) from the special relativity was wrong.
What about the bulb which emitted light? In relationship to the passengers, the bulb is static; it moves for the person on the pavement. However, light moves for all three observers with the same speed c.

Another argument which indicates that Einstein is wrong: we receive light from a star and measuring the wavelength of that light we conclude that light has been emitted one billion years ago. Other beings live on another Earth placed at half distance from that star. They measure the wavelength of the same light and calculate the distance between the planet and that star is half. If Einstein were correct (no simultaneity for the same event), we conclude that there were two different distances and times. Quite wrong conclusion. The same conclusion is available for those three observers (two passenger and observer on the pavement): there are no different spatial-temporal frameworks, there is a simultaneity of that process. If we know the speed of light is c, we can count when the light of that bulb has been turn on and all three observers would conclude the same moment! There is no dilation of time, no contraction of space; anyway, spacetime could not even exist.

Regarding the inertial frame: if the left passenger throws a tennis ball with speed 20 km/hour toward the right passenger in that wagon in motion (60 km/hour) with a constant speed, for the right-passenger, the ball moves with 20 km/hour toward the him. For the person on the pavement, the ball has 20+60=80 km/h. But, if the passengers know the speed of the ball and the speed of the train, they can count the speed of the ball related to the Earth, i.e., 80 km/h.

Light has the same speed c for all three observers. Maxwell and Einstein postulated that the speed of light is the same for any observer and this speed is the maximum speed. Why? I want to furnish an explanation for this postulate. The difference between tennis ball and light is that the ball has a mass, light (electromagnetic wave/field and photons) has no mass. This is the explanation the inertial impulse is applied to the ball but not to the light. This is the reason, c is the maximum speed: it is the speed for material objects without mass in motion in nothing (not space since space could not even exist). We know from Einstein’s equation E=mc2 that to push an object with mass to reach the speed of light, we need “infinite” energy because, having a mass, it’s the energy of an object with mass increases proportionally with increasing its speed. In order that object to reach the speed c, we need an infinite amount of energy (infinite could not even exist – see my previous works).

In my previous works, I indicated that spacetime could not even exist. Therefore, gravity is not the curved spacetime, but nothing (no ontology) which corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field between a concentration of electromagnetic field (which corresponds to an apple) and the concentration of electromagnetic field (which correspond to the Earth). So, there is neither curved spacetime, nor gravitons. So, what is gravity? It is nothing (no ontology) between the apple and the Earth which corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field between two concentrations of the same electromagnetic field. These two concentrations of electromagnetic field do not move one toward the other because the electromagnetic field between them is curved. There are the macro-entities (apple and Earth) which moves one toward the other because these macro-entities have masses and between them is nothing which correspond to the curved electromagnetic field. Gravitation has the speed of light, c because it is the curved electromagnetic field.

Another problem with Einstein’ special relativity: if we have to take into account the constant speed of light (and we have to take into account), we have to include in our “measurements” the biological mechanisms (their eyes, their brains, etc.) of each human observer. Surely, all three observers will not perceive the image of that bulb at the same fraction of time since their brains processes the sensory images in different ways; there would be fractions of fractions of second differences in their neuronal processing. So, there would be no simultaneity regarding the light. Moreover, it is known that women perceive more nuances (not colors) than man. Then, woman would perceive different nuances of that light-bulb. In fact, each person would perceive different nuances of that light-bulb.[1]

Following Einstein’ “different simultaneity”, if there are different spatio-temporal frameworks (one for those two passengers in the wagon, one for the person on pavement), we can conclude there are different bulbs emitting the same kind of light (since all three lights (for those three observers) have the same speed c). Against this idea is that light moves always in the same “spatio-temporal” framework! From the viewpoint of light, there are no different “spatiotemporal” frameworks. (imagine both passengers + wagon and person on pavement + pavement having the speed of light, c…) Moreover, the wave-light emitted by bulb in one direction is the “same” wave-light with different wavelengths/frequencies in different points.[2]

According to Einstein, for the clock in motion, time is slower than for the static clock and there is no “time” for the phenomena having the speed of light, c. In reality, there is neither time, nor space (spacetime) at all. Even if, when he became older, Einstein believed there is no “time”, he did not believe there is no space. In reality, even if we presuppose time is the fourth dimension related to three spatial dimensions, how is time dimension related, ontologically, to those three spatial dimensions? Let me ask, a point on a sphere belong to which spatial dimension? All three? But let me ask the same question about a point of a metal box. We can identify those three dimensions exactly if the point is on one margin of that box. If the point is at the intersection between three margins of that box (exactly in one corner of that box), then that point belongs to which margin? To all? So, there are all three spatial framework in the same point? If that point is infinitesimal (infinite could not even exist-see my previous works), it belongs to all three dimensions. This is ontological contradiction: all three spatial dimensions are in the same point! This is another argument space could not even exist.

Another example of measuring and simultaneity: a person P1 hits his head on a wall. Another person P2 sees this phenomena from 10m distance. When the head of P1 interacted with the wall? For P1 it is t1, for P2 is t2 (due to the constant speed of light, c). Let suppose P1 and P2 hit their heads in different parts of the same wall at the same time. For whom would be the same time? For the third person who is at the same distance form P1 and P2. However, accordingly to the special relativity, if P3 is closer to P2 than P1, because of constant speed of light, using a perfect instrument of observation, P3 will judge that P2 hits the wall few fractions of a second before P1. It does not matter all these three persons do not move on the pavement near that wall. We are forced to apply the absoluteness of our measurement apparatus (which includes the light with constant speed c) even for those three persons not walking on that pavement.

Let suppose, P1 and P2 hit their heads. P3 is at equal distance from both P1 and P2. For P3, the process took place at one time t3. However, following the special relativity, for P1 and P3 the interactions between their heads/bodies took place earlier than t3. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, there is no time (spacetime). Therefore, all these judges are wrong. I am sure the process of hitting their head was the same for all three, even if we cannot measure exactly this process. The problem is that each person has her own sensations, perceptions, felling, thoughts which are the self. Each self (a mind-EW) corresponds the each brain/body of each person. P1 and P2 has each a pain. Obviously, it is not the same pain. According to my EDWs perspective, one self (a mind-EW) is not for any mind-EDW. P1 has his own brain/body, P2 has her own brain/body. Therefore, the sensation of pain for P1 is not at the exactly at same moment with sensation of pain for P2. So, there is no simultaneously pains for P1 and P2. From my viewpoint, each pain is a mind-EW, the mind-EW of P1 is not for the mind-EW of P2. It is not different spatiotemporal frameworks, but EDWs.

Can we say that point is also in “time”? How do we related a metal point (which belongs to that metal box) with time? “Everything is in time”, but prove me this statement… You measure time with a clock, I see the motion of certain elements which belong to that clock, but I do not see time. Neither space.

Let me give a detail about the general relativity and Brian Green’s example (2003) with two persons measuring a “rotated rigid disc” (a disc with round wall which moves circularly). Those persons measured the circumference of that disc when it did not move. Measuring the circumference of that disc in motion using a line, the length of that circumference will be greater since, because of motion, the length of that line is shorter when measure the circumference of the disc. So, the circumference (also area) of the disc in motion is difference than the circumference in motion since C/r = 2π.

The general relativity indicates that if the curvature of spacetime is greater, the motion of the clock is slower.  It indicates that time is slower on the Earth than on the Moon (the mass of the Moon is much smaller than the mass of the Earth, therefore, spacetime near the Earth is much more curbed than on the Moon). From my viewpoint, since spacetime could not even exist, the clock on Earth moves slower than the same clock on the Moon (the macro-EW) (and the corresponding amalgam of microparticles the micro-EW for the clock and the planets) because of the correspondences between the Earth, the Moon and the clock and the three concentrations of electromagnetic waves and (these three concentrations of the electromagnetic field correspond to the Earth, Moon and clock from the macro-EW) the curved electromagnetic field between these concentrations (which corresponds to the “space” between the Earth and the Moon). The concentration of the electromagnetic field/field-EW which corresponds to the Earth/macro-EW is much higher than the concentration of the field/field-EW which correspond to the Moon/macro-EW, therefore, the motion of the concentration of the electromagnetic wave which corresponds to the macro-elements of clock (the macro-EW) is slower near the concentration of the field which corresponds to the Earth.

The problem is that even accepting Einstein’s general relativity, both measurements and our calculation of areas in both cases cannot be perfect since π is an irrational number. So even we measure with a perfect instrument (it does not exist, anyway), we can never have an exact result for this equation. It is not only our imperfect measurement apparatus, but also our calculations/mathematics which furnish imperfect results/calculations of our measurements. It does not mean the circle draw on a blackboard or that rotated rigid disc does not exist: there is some white dust (3D) on that blackboard, there is that rotated rigid disc.

The imperfect measurements (always using certain measurement apparatus or at least a human body and the corresponding mind-EW) are given by

  • our measurement apparatus
  • human observer (thinking/thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc.)
  • mathematical calculation (language) (it belongs to the mind, anyway).

We have always to take into account that the human observer is her body in the macro-EW and her mind (the mind-EW), therefore the measurements always involves (imperfect) correspondences (no ontology). However, the ED entities/objects that we measure really exist in their EDWs. Even if we accept Einstein’s special relativity (space and time exist and spacetime depends on motion), there are always imperfect measurements. Moreover, the communication between two persons is the language, but each person has her own vocabulary (even if it is the same language if all three are speaking native English language). Light is the electromagnetic wave (the field-EW) which corresponds to an amount of photons (the micro-EW), but the bodies of those three human observers belong to the macro-EW, each self is a particular mind-EW. One EW does not exist (is not) for any EDW. Therefore, any measurement and any communication between two persons will be some approximations, even if the objects/entities/processes somebody measures really exist.

For avoiding Berkeley/idealism or pragmatism or any skepticism, if you do not believe or you are skeptical that the wall really exists in front of your body, and you do not believe your body exists in the macro-EW and your mind is (as the mind-EW), then strongly hit the wall with your head. If you are a normal person (you have pains), you will have a pain hitting with “your” head that wall. If you do not believe you have a pain, you have to hit stronger your head to the wall and eventually 4-5 times. You will have a pain, not an illusion of pain. But the neurons do not have pain, exactly as there are no green neurons in your head. Then where are the green color when you see a green tree, where is the pain when you hit the wall with your head? The green color and the pain are not in your brain/head but in your mind. You hit your head to the wall, but because of the correspondence between the brain/body-wall and your mind, there is a pain in your mind. The green color is neither on the leaves of the tree, not the light which interacts with those leaves (between those leaves and your eyes, there is light, but you see nothing green between leaves and eyes), nor on your retina (if, for instance your eyes are blue, not green). There are some cells (cones) which “respond” to different wavelengths of light, but those cones do not have green, blue and red colors. All cones are quite similar, these biological entities have approximately the same “colors”. Their signals are sent into the brain, but there are no colors in your brain (even if there is some red blood and some “white” neurons in your brain). In reality, exactly as the leaves do not have color, the cones do not have colors. Imagine the color of your neurons in the middle of your brain when your head/body is normal and not damaged by a car accident or by a brain medical operation. When there is a surgical operation on the brain of a person, the doctor perceives, indirectly (through correspondences between the eyes/brain and the mind) some parts of that brain with the help of some light. Those parts of the brain, the brain/body are in the macro-EW, that light (electromagnetic wave) is in the field-EW, the photons of that light are in the micro-EW, while the perceptions/thoughts of that doctor are her mind-EW. How then that surgical operation does takes place? There are correspondences (no ontology) between the ED entities/phenomena/processes which belong to the EDWs: the mind of the doctor is an EW, the mind of that patient is an mind-EW, the brains/bodies of patient and doctor belongs and his medical macro-tools to the macro-EW, the light necessary for that surgical operation is ED entities, i.e., the electromagnetic waves/field-EW and the photons/micro-EW. I recall, the identity of a material, physical entity is given by its interactions with other entities from the same EW in some period of “time”. Because of these interactions or corresponding interactions, that entity can change its boundaries in a very short or quite long period of “time”. For instance, within the macro-EW, a bottle from glass can be broken by a stone. In that moment, the bottle ceased to exist; there are certain pieces of glass which formed, in the past, that bottle of glass. At the same period, an amalgam of the microparticles (the micro-EW) and an electromagnetic field (the field-EW) corresponds to the macro-bottle. When the bottle is broken, the amalgam of microparticles (the micro-EW) and the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) are “dissipated” because of their interaction with another amalgam of microparticles and electromagnetic field (which corresponds to the stone). Vice-versa is also correct: certain nuclear reactions (the micro-EW and the field-EW) can change, through correspondences, the format of a macro-entity (the macro-EW).

Conclusion: Spacetime could not even exist. (see my previous works) Also, each phenomena happens (ontologically) simultaneously for all the entities/human observers, even if, due to our conditions of observation, we can observe that phenomena in different “moments”. All our measurements/observations (always macro-tools since a human being cannot observe directly an electron, not even the body of a human does not interact with an electron; only the amalgam of microparticles (which corresponds to the body) interacts with that electron) are just approximations, but the certain phenomena (the ED entities and their ED interactions) really exist in the EDWs. Also, the human subject really is as the mind-EW which corresponds to the brain/body placed within the macro-EW.[3]

[1] I do not consider only mind/God exist (like Berkeley) because I do no go to church. See my article “God could not even exist” at my webpage or my previous works.

[2] Another experiment: in a classroom, I am with 8 students (placed in different chairs, different lengths from me). I let a coin to hit the table in my classroom from 50 cm above. For me, the coin hits the table at t1. For the student in first line from me at t2, for the students in the second line t3, etc. We add light for everybody, we get different moments for the coin hitting the table.

[3] In this way, through correspondences, we avoid the entire “Theseus’ ship” (see my previous works). For instance, my mind-EW corresponds to my body and its interactions with the environment. At one moment, one piece of my hair falls down on the pavement. Is my body the same? Yes, it is the same as before losing my hair since it corresponds to the mind-EW (the self) which does not change during my entire life. Obviously, I change my knowledge a lot, but the self/mind remains the same. Since the mind is immaterial, it is meaningless to consider that acquiring knowledge, my mind/self has changed. Acquiring knowledge, it does not mean my mind becomes “larger” (it does not have, following Descartes who avoided using “space” for describing body in his “Meditations”, a greater “extension”)… Acquiring knowledge means my mind creates in itself new knowledge, but not new “material” since my knowledge is immaterial. The immaterial substance does not increase its extensions or size since, being immaterial, it does not have any extension/size. (about “self”, see my previous book 2016 and some of my articles).

Gabriel Vacariu (October 12th, 8.00 pm[4], 2024)
(Department of Philosophy, Bucharest University)

[4] I wrote even the hour because many “professors” have plagiarized my ideas until now (see my DARK list on Internet). Very probable, one or more persons will publish similar ideas (i.e., plagiarize my ideas) in the next days or even in the same day, but different hour…

Publicat în Filosofie, IdeiRecomandat0 recomandări

Răspunsuri

Adresa ta de email nu va fi publicată. Câmpurile obligatorii sunt marcate cu *