Blog
20160427 Sensing Matter
In
a comment to Blog 20160420 henk korbee asks:
“If time is motion
what is then the meaning of Time times Velocity equals distance? How can one recognize matter without motion?”
Thanks henk for another good brainteaser.
I believe you refer to this equation:
d = (t)(v) = (t)(d/t) = td/t = d (t/t) = d
Thus if we travel alongside an
object for 1 hour at 1 km/hr, we will have travelled a distance of 1 km. This
is one way of measuring length. Another would be to use a 1-km long tape
measure. Ostensibly, we do not need to measure time to measure distance. We
might imagine that the object is motionless and that motion (time) is as
irrelevant as any factor divided by itself (e.g., t/t).
Of course, as with other “henkisms,”
this is not so simple, as you point out with your comment that: “How can one
recognize matter without motion?” Your implication is correct: We cannot. To
recognize matter we need at least one of our five senses (touch, sight,
hearing, smell, or taste). The use of any of these requires motion,
specifically, the collision of at least one microcosm with another. Trillions
of such collisions would be involved in travelling alongside the object or
measuring it with a tape. Again, we need motion in order to recognize matter.
That gives additional meaning and support to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is
no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).
The philosophical implications
of henk’s question are numerous. For instance, indeterminists sporting the
assumption of separability sometimes propose
all manner of theories of the paranormal (e.g., ESP, etc.), which are assumed
to avoid this necessity for matter to collide with matter. Scientists reject
such claims outright along with those suggesting the possibility of perpetual
motion. Unfortunately, regressive physicists are not ashamed to hypothesize
matterless motion, as Einstein did when, in the spirit of aether denial, he
claimed that magnetic and gravitational fields were “immaterial” despite the
obvious motion displayed.
Of course, just because matter
exists, does not mean that we can always sense it. The Eighth Assumption of
Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and
macrocosmic directions) guarantees that, no matter how sophisticated our investigations,
we will always reach a point beyond which microcosms are so small that we will
not be able to sense them, even with sensitive instruments. At that juncture,
we will have a choice: we can assume that they exist nonetheless, or we can
assume that they do not, being replaced by the nonexistent “perfectly empty
space” of the idealist.
Lastly, henk’s suggestion that
matter cannot be sensed without motion means that the matterless motion of the
indeterminist cannot be sensed either. The sensing process always involves
collisions between microcosms per Newton’s Second Law of
Motion. The idea that motion could occur divorced from matter, is the ESP of
regressive physics.
Posts
4 comments:
We cannot imagine any matter to be motionless according to all known physics. But, we could use Al Kelly's idea modified by me and have a man-made universal reference point to answer these problems.
Re: Bligh Comment
I don't know Al Kelly, what his idea is, nor how Bligh has modified it, so I can only respond to the preface and conclusion.
Bligh: "We cannot imagine any matter to be motionless ..."
Physics doesn't constrain our imagination. Contrary to all known physics, I can imagine myself walking on the rings of Saturn or shooting lightning bolts from my hands. There's nothing to prevent us from imagining material objects without motion, even if our senses require motion to perceive them in the first place.
"... have a man-made universal reference point ..."
The concept of a universal reference frame has existed for a long time. It requires picking some specific "center point of the universe" and reference points for each of three dimensions. In an infinite universe, any such points are purely arbitrary, though humanity is inclined to choose "where I am" as the Center (Earth), with the Polar Star, and other "fixed stars" as a preferred celestial frame.
A "universal frame" doesn't answer any questions, though it may facilitate communication among those who agree with the orthodoxy of specific coordinates. It doesn't change anything in reality, because it doesn't really exist: it's just a convenient fabrication.
Assuming we were to agree on some universal frame, it would be meaningless to say that some material object is "not moving" in that frame, since we couldn't detect it without the motion of light reflection, which would move it.
Bottom line, all motion is relative: it is only a change in the spatial relationship of any two objects. Picking one or the other as a reference allows us to quantify motion for our own purposes, but it doesn't change the fact that neither of them is "fixed" in nature.
I agree that human-beings have a lot of imagination so that I can consider a rock without seeing any rocky motion. As far as I understand what is written about motion and matter it is also about the question can we observe motion without any matter. Seems that a photon is such a 'thing' and that experiments has to give evidence for that point of view in order there is the best explanantion for that view. Summing up: if observing matter then there must be some movable thing which you can look for; and then if I watch a motion it is plausible that there is matter.
Time is not motion, time is frequency of motion. Raise your velocity and you expand your frequency. Time does not slow with acceleration, contrary to popular explanations, it's frequency simply grows with the increasing mass. Your perception of time may slow relative to other things in the universe, but that's immaterial. If we travel at C we are simply matching frequencies, so motion becomes 1 and time becomes 1. It most certainly doesn't stop though. Times frequency just becomes so big it's out of our perceptual range compared to the rest of the universe. 0 is stopped time, which lies at the other end of the motion spectrum. I wouldn't advice trying to go there though. Motion itself is constant. Everything, be it at (perceived) rest, or in a perceived state of motion, is always traveling at some derivative of C. The overall system that's moving (or at rest) is always traveling at C one way or another. Our perspective simply changes around motion. There is no space-time dimension. There is dimensional space, time, and motion. All three elements of our existence are bound together as a single element we call the universe. Time cannot exist without motion, and motion cannot exist without time, and the universe cannot exist without space,time, or motion. Time (in the temporal sense) is not a tangible asset, it is a perceived asset, and that perception changes with our motion. But no, I would concur that matter and motion is a bound state. You cannot have matter without motion, and vice versa.
I certainly don't see our universe as infinite, although there is an endless amount of universes beyond ours. We are sealed off, or encapsulated from the outer universes. We're a speck of existence from their point of view. And the further away one travels through the hierarchy of universes the less relevant our existence. You have to have a finite element of existence from which to gauge your bearings, even if that element is only perceptual in nature. The universe, like matter, requires a closed system in order to be perceived. It's just logical. Our universe is a closed biosphere more or less. Motion rises in an outwardly manner, and we contract inward along that flow in the vacuum of space as we decelerate. The frequency of time rises as we slow down and contract inward. The process creates a hill more or less, and we're simply rolling down hill losing momentum while gaining frequency along the way. Our perspective is inherently bound to our motion though, so we can't detect the changes to our biosphere, or universe if you prefer. The only fixed point of reference we truly have is our relative perspective. It's all that matters.
Respectfully, I think your worldview is incorrect, although there does appear to be some elements of truth. The same could be said for Einstein I suppose, although I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that he was wrong. His work is simply incomplete. He gave us a solid footing to complete his work, not abandon it entirely. I think that's a foolish and unwise move, respectfully of course. I've already been there, and it got me nowhere. Too many of the experiments and predictions uphold the basic concept of relativity. He nailed the calculations as well, but no one really knew entirely what they meant, including him. It's just not quite there yet. Relativity is an unfinished theory. He knew that. He spent the rest of his life trying to figure out what it was he discovered actually. He wanted science to finish it, not to prove it or debate the validity of it over the past 100 years. He knew he was on the right path for that ultimate answer. That's why he wasn't a big fan of Quantum Physics. We've just been spinning our wheels pecking away theories one quanta at time, without looking at the bigger picture.
Post a Comment