Topic: ИЛЮЗИЯ ли е ВРЕМЕТО?

Един свръхопростен но все пак валиден аргумент:

Ако скоростта на светлината на зависи от скоростта на източника, т.е. ако вторият постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 е верен, то времето е илюзия (в смисъла определен от теорията на Айнщайн) и хората трябва да подложат интуицията си на прокрустова промяна:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june … -22-09.php
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert Einstein

http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html … 2141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity, and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million times a day from ordinary comings and goings."

http://www.evene.fr/celebre/actualite/2 … in-114.php
"Les articles parus en 1905 dans la revue 'Annalen der Physik' révolutionnent non seulement le petit monde de la physique, mais aussi la perception commune de grands concepts tels que le temps, l'espace ou la matière. Enfinils auraient dû car si les théories einsteiniennes sont aujourd'hui admises et célébrées partout dans le monde scientifique, si une grande partie de la recherche fondamentale a pour objectif de les développer, le commun des mortels continue cependant à parler du temps, de lespace, et de la matière comme il le faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour, physicien et auteur dun ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein métait conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix Nobel. "Loin davoir été assimilées par tout un chacun", écrit-il, "les révolutions einsteiniennes sont simplement ignorées." Car les découvertes dont on parle dépassent de très loin - comme souvent - les préoccupations purement scentifiques. Il est, de fait, encore extrêmement complexe et ardu de comprendre la notion de temps non pas comme un flux, un absolu, mais comme un relatif, pouvant ralentir selon la vitesse de lobservateur."

Ако времето не е илюзия, както внушава философът на науката Джон Нортън, то скоростта на светлината зависи от скоростта на източника, т.е. вторият постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 е грешен:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 … -tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/p … index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

Re: ИЛЮЗИЯ ли е ВРЕМЕТО?

Друга версия на същия (в основата си) аргумент:

Ако скоростта на светлината не зависи от скоростта на източника, т.е. ако вторият постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 е верен, то дълъг влак се побира в къс тунел, тяло дълго 80м се побира в 40-метров контейнер и една буболечка може да е едновременно жива и мъртва:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo … amp;search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R … _pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hb … rivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Ако обаче дългият влак не се побира в къс тунел, ако тялото дълго 80м не се побира в 40-метровия контейнер и ако буболечката не може да е едновременно жива и мъртва, то скоростта на светлината зависи от скоростта на източника, т.е. ВТОРИЯТ ПОСТУЛАТ НА АЙНЩАЙН ОТ 1905 Е ГРЕШЕН.

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

3 (edited by Valentino 15.07.2010г. 18:21:27)

Re: ИЛЮЗИЯ ли е ВРЕМЕТО?

.