khuram

Archive for the ‘Space & Time’ Category

About space and time

Simple Thought Experiment to Disprove Relative Constant Speed of Light.

Posted by khuram on October 5, 2016

Light Speed is said to be constant irrespective of relative motion of observer.

Moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from us. Suppose moon is looking like a clock such that moon clock is behind your watch by 1.3 seconds.

Now you start moving towards moon with a normal speed of 100 km/hr. Moon is 384400 KM away so your journey will take about 160 days.

Normal speed is assumed so that there should be no alleged effect of time dilation due to ultra high speed.

So after 160 days you will be on moon and what will be the difference in time of your watch and moon clock…???

There will be no difference. Means that due to your relative motion, light of moon clock has traveled up to you at speed c+100 km/hr i.e. with speed c+v.

If you are still reading moon clock as 1.3 seconds behind your watch then it means that from an ordinary distance, light is taking 1.3 seconds to reach you so again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

Above is only a thought experiment. Now we do a real experiment. So now moon is looking like normal moon and not like a clock. And from earth we see moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age.

Now we do not suppose, we actually start moving towards moon at normal speed of 100 km/hr. And after 160 days we reach at the surface of moon.

By standing on surface of moon we are looking at moon which is not younger by 1.3 seconds but are looking at moon that exists right now. It means that during whole of our journey we had been receiving light of moon with c+v formula.

If by standing on surface of moon we are watching moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age, it means that light is taking extra 1.3 seconds to reach our eyes and again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

 

 

Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | Leave a Comment »

Difference in Daytime and Nighttime Stars:

Posted by khuram on March 18, 2011

Daytime and Nighttime Stars:

I just google searched to see some information about any possible difference between Daytime and Nighttime sky but first few pages however could not satisfy my query. So here I am writing down my understanding of the issue. First of all there must be stars in Daytime. Secondly, those stars must be different from those what we observe in Night Sky.

Why there must be stars in Day Sky?

Well, I never have seen. I read somewhere that stars are visible in daytime from deep vertical coal mines. I also heard/read that stars become apparent during complete solar eclipse etc. Apart from these reasons, sun is also a star and is visible in daytime.

Why Nighttime stars should be different from those what we observe in Night Sky?

As we cannot see The Sun in the night sky, so we should not be able to see other objects of Day Sky at Nighttime. The Sun is above of us at Daytime but it is beneath of us in Nighttime. So other Daytime fixed objects (stars) also should be beneath of us at Nighttime.

At Night, we see those things which were beneath of us at Daytime. This is very simple position. I do not know the official position of Science on this issue. I may be wrong but this is what I can understand at my own.

Update on April 27, 2011:

Last night I observed apparent movement of ‘fixed stars’ in sky. Today I google searched to see details of movements of stars. What I learn is that stars, just like sun, also rise in east and set in the west.

Following web page discusses this thing:

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/skymotion.htm

So if Stars also change positions like sun, then obviously daytime stars are different from nighttime stars.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time, Various General Topics | 6 Comments »

Time – a mental construct or a physical reality?

Posted by khuram on January 5, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
If we go deeper than our (actually my) understanding abilities, then we are at the level of an idealist. At this level, we are not confirmed whether material world really exists or not. Then we can theorize that time is just a mental construct.

But if we are not at this much level of depth, then we are at the level of a scientist who takes material world a reality.

At this level … time is not any physical thing. But however, time is the name of a physical phenomenon.

Physical events do occur before and after one another. Course of occurrence of physical events is a physical phenomena.

Some events are repetitive in nature and they occur at regular intervals. In normal conditions, regular interval between one kind of physical event can correspond to exact number of intervals between some other regular type physical event.

Time can only be measured by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events.

Time is duration between events. Duration is measurable by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events. And that physical duration is the time!

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Space & Time | 5 Comments »

“Space-Time Four Dimensions” Vs. “Time is Not Absolute”:

Posted by khuram on February 24, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
“Space-Time Four Dimensions” Vs. “Time is Not Absolute”:

Relativity Theory is often linked with the idea of space-time four dimensions. Meaning of space-time four dimensions is quite simple however. Just like we refer to a “point” in “space” using THREE coordinate references, we refer to an “event” using FOUR coordinate references of “space-time”, where three are the coordinates of space and the fourth is the time coordinate.

So far this concept of four dimensional “space-time” is quite simple. Actual confusion comes when both Special and General Theories of Relativity assert that Time is not absolute. According to these theories, since there is no absolute time, so two observers can record different time durations of a single event, even if they employ exact same type watches for recording the time duration.

Actually, General Relativity Theory provides that Time can move faster or slower at different locations of Universe. Speed of Time, according to this theory (i.e. experimentally proven) is normal (means fastest) in complete empty space where there is no effect of any force of gravitation at all.

But at those spots of universe, which are in the range of considerable force of gravitation, time slows down at those locations.

Secondly, Special Theory of Relativity says that time slows down in an object if that object is moving at very high speed i.e. comparable to the speed of light (i.e. “time dilation”). These two assertions of General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity have been resulted in famous “End of Time” in Black Holes (General Theory) and “Twin Paradox” (Special Theory) sort of things. These assertions also have been resulted in confusions regarding the concept of space-time four dimensions. Since there is no absolute time and since time can be different at different spots of spatial universe, so there comes the confusion as if ”time” is some “physical” part of “space” and that as if “space” has physical four dimensions, due to which time can be different at different points of space. Purpose of this article is just to show that these two assertions of General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity that time can be different in (i) gravitational fields and in (ii) high speed objects, have nothing to do with the simple concept of space-time four dimensions.

Let us take the assertion that time slows down in gravitational field (General Theory). Out of this primary assertion (empirically proven), what can be logically deduced is just that Speed of time is the characteristic property of any particular point of three-dimensional space.

But since this speed of time can very for high speed objects as well (Special Theory) … so speed of time can be considered to be a characteristic property of speed of objects as well.

To conclude Four physical dimensions of space or even space-time, out of these two assertions of General Relativity and Special Relativity is a whole misleading and just confused idea. Very ironically, science literature discusses the concept of space-time four dimensions and another quite different fact that time is not absolute, in a way that gives the sense that these two are representing a single concept … that space or space-time has physical four dimensions.  

Idea that “Time” is the 4th dimension of “space” is Totally Absurd – PROOF

Let us first assume that science in fact says that “time” is the fourth dimension of “space”. Actually science doesn’t say exact this thing, but we can proceed in following way to prove that “time” cannot be the fourth dimension of “space”:

If “science” is talking about “space” … then it should talk about only and only space. It means, “science” should talk about complete empty space.[Also see my article: Space as a form of ‘Nothingness’]

In a complete empty space … where there is no “matter” at all … Time cannot even exist in such complete empty space.

What is Time…???

Concept of time comes out of movement of material objects. Movement of material objects generates events.

What is Time…???

Time is actually the DURATION between those EVENTS.

In a complete empty space >>> there shall be no material objects >>> With no material objects >>> there shall be no movement of material objects >>> with no movement >>> there shall be no EVENTS >>> with no events >>> there shall be no DURATION between EVENTS >>> Means No Time at all…!!!

Time does not exist in empty space. So the idea that “time” is 4th dimension of space is Totally Absurd.

And as I have explained that Time does not exist in empty space. Here I want to add something to it.

The concept of time is wholly dependent on the movement of physical objects. Time does not reside in “space”. Time is there inside of physical objects. Because physical objects always remain in the state of motion. It is only and only physical objects and their mutual interactions that give us the “idea” of time. What has been empirically verified is just that movement of same nature “events” slows down with increase in the strength of Gravitational field. Gravitational field is Not the characteristic property of space itself. Gravitational field is the characteristic property of massive material objects in fact. Events occur only and only in material objects … Duration between events also has to do only with material objects … Slowing down of those events is also because of “mutual interactions” of those material objects.

Time, so, resides only in the “behavior” of “physical objects”. Time does not slow down because of some property of space itself. Time slows down only due to “mutual interactions” of material objects. Let’s at point ‘T’ of empty space, speed of time is ‘a’. Now we bring a massive material object near the point ‘T’. Now speed of time at point ‘T’ shall be slowed down because now this point would be within the range of a gravitational field. This slowing down of time has not happened due to any property of “space” whatsoever. It has happened just due to mutual interaction, or type of movement (in case of slowing down of time in high speed objects) of material objects.

Time has nothing to do with Space…!!!

Space has only three dimensions. We use three dimensions of space to locate a “point” in three dimensional space.

But we use four dimensions of “space-time” just with the view to locate an “event” in four dimensional space-time.

This simple idea of space-time four dimensions is not the direct or indirect result of the complicated idea of Theories of Relativity that time is not absolute and that time can be different in gravitational fields (General Relativity) or in high speed objects (Special Relativity).

But the fact that there is no absolute time in this universe does have its implication on the “structure” of space-time coordinates. In most simple words, the “time coordinate” of four dimensional “space-time” can be thought of having an “irregular scale”. Let us talk in terms of two different frames of references of two observers A and B. Observer A is stationary in space and is not subjected to varying strengths of surrounding gravitational fields (Suppose he is stationary in complete empty space outside the influence of any gravitational field). Observer B is moving in space with velocity v. As observer B is moving, he sometime moves from complete empty space and sometime goes through the fields of gravitation because of the presence of nearby massive bodies.

In this case, time coordinate scale of observer A has to be perfectly regular. Means his every second will be having a constant duration. But time coordinate scale of observer B will be irregular. Whenever he will pass by gravitational fields, the duration of his “seconds” will become greater because his time will slow down within the range of gravitational fields. He himself may not be able to take notice of irregularities of his time scale. But observer A will be able to take notice of irregularities of time scale of observer B. Suppose originally both observers kept exact same type watches. In the end, when observer B shall come to the location of observer A, then both observers’ clocks will show different passage of time. Observer B’s clock will show lesser passage of time than observer A’s clock because observer B was subjected to slowing down of his time at different spots of his journey. Observer B was also subjected to slowing down of his time because of his own velocity v.

It has been mentioned above that “irregularity” of the scale of time coordinate of observer B can be noticeable to only observer A. It is due to the fact that as clock of observer B becomes slow, so his all other movements in space also have to slow down. Meaning of slowing down of time is not confined to just slowing down of clock. Its complete meanings include slowing down of all the movements and events, including slowing down of clock and even “feeling” of passage of time as well as biological aging process, with same ratio. As every kind of movement in space has been slowed down, therefore for observer B, his distance traveled in space per unit time shall NOT be affected; because for him, his clock and his movement in space has been slowed down with exact same ratio. It means that observer B shall not be able to realize any decrease (or increase) in his “velocity” in space as a result of slowing down of his time.

Let us now talk only in terms of “time dilation” due to high velocity of observer B in space (i.e. Special Relativity). Suppose initially both observers A and B were at same location in space. Then observer B starts his journey in space at very high velocity i.e comparable to the speed of light. Suppose his destination was located at the distance of exact one hour with that much high velocity. Observer B has to reach his destination and has to come back at original location. For observer A, observer B should come back in exact two hours.

Now let us see what will happen due to the irregularity of the scale of time coordinate of observer B. As observer B will acquire high velocity, his time will be slowed down with reference to the time of observer A. Not only the clock of observer B, but his movement in space per unit time of observer A will also be slowed down. But as his movement in space will be slowed down in exact same ratio of his own clock timing, so neither observer B will be able to take notice of slowing down of his clock timing, nor he will be able to take notice of slowing down of his movement in space.  For him, he is still moving at the velocity that will take exact one hour to reach at the destination. In this way, he shall reach to the destination and will come back to original location in exact two hours.

But in the same “time”, observer A’s clock will show passage of far more time … may be 10 hours, 10 days, 10 years or like, depending on the velocity acquired by observer B. 

This is exactly what “Twin Paradox” tries to highlight. That there were two twin young brothers. One brother started journey in space at very high velocity. After few minutes when he came back, he saw that his twin brother was then an aged person!

Net result of this article is that space-time four dimensions is basically a simple concept. Idea of no absolute time does not mean that time is a “physical” dimension of space. Idea of no absolute time has the implication however that it suggests irregular scale of the time coordinate for an observer who is moving in four dimensional space-time with velocity v and/ or becomes subject to varying strengths of surrounding gravitational fields.

At the end, it is also important to point out that modern Physics also suggests more than three dimensions of “space” alone. It is said that higher dimensions of space are not perceivable to us because they reveal themselves only at particle levels and at very high energy states like in particle accelerators etc. Modern speculative theories like Strings Theory and M-Theory etc. have tried to construct models of universe in terms of higher than three dimensions of space.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Space & Time | 18 Comments »

Space – as a form of ‘Nothingness’:

Posted by khuram on June 29, 2007

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Our Universe is considered to be made up of matter, energy and space. At the level of sub-atomic particles, Quantum Physics has found that both matter and energy behave like ‘waves’. There are some modern scientists-cum-philosophers who assert that ‘space’ is also composed of waves. They actually think that all the reality is made up of just ‘space’ and ‘space’ itself is made up of ‘waves’. Here, I disagree to the idea that ‘space’ is made up of waves. My contention is that space is NOT ‘composed’ of waves but actually space just ‘holds’ waves. Space is the name of nothingness. Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy). Space has no dimensions. Space has no measurements of its own. Space has no vastness. It is not right to say that space is finite or infinite. Because Space is ‘nothingness’. Space has no positive ‘existence’. Space, being complete non-resistance, neither attracts, nor repels anything. Those modern scientists-cum-philosophers also show amazement that how comes that matter is ‘suspended’ in space. For me, it is just due to the simple fact that space itself neither attracts, nor repels anything. So there is nothing to wonder for why objects are suspended in space.

We never measure ‘space’. We only measure ‘material entities’. For instance, 3 meters of ‘space’ is not 3 meters of ‘space’ in the real sense. 3 meters of space is actually just equal to 3 physical meters. In this way, neither we ever measure space, nor space can be measured. Only material entities can be measured. And since ‘space’ is the name of complete non-resistance, so space offers no resistance even to the measurements of material objects, to their mutual distances or to any other form of their mutual interactions. And if there is ‘distance’ between two material objects, it does not mean that any space of particular measurement ‘exists’ between those two objects. Those two objects are away from one another with distance, which is equivalent to particular number of times a physical object such as a meter. As space is ‘nothingness’, so it should have no ‘dimensions’ as well. We know of ‘dimensions’ also only in terms of material objects. It is the ‘geometry’ of physical objects, which makes us think as if space is having 3 (Some modern theories of Physics are advocating for even n-dimensions) dimensions.

So I have this type of objections in mind. For me reality is not space because it is a non-existent entity. Reality should be seen in those entities that positively exist. There are two things which are known to have positive existence which are: (i) matter and; (ii) Energy. And since both these things have been found to be made up of single entity i.e. ‘waves’, so instead of considering ‘space’ to be the source of all reality, I think it better to consider ‘waves’ as the source of reality. But we also should properly distinguish between existing entity and non-existing entity.

If waves only have discrete motion (as per Quantum Physics), then why to even talk of any kind of continuous physical motion at all? For me, all physical motion, including physical motion of ordinary objects is not continuous at all. All physical motion is discrete. Consider a simple situation. My car is moving at the speed of 100 Km/hrs and it is raining outside. Suppose vertical velocity of a raindrop was 10 Km/hrs whereas that drop had zero horizontal velocity. Now when that drop shall collide with my windscreen, it will at once acquire horizontal velocity of 100 Km/hrs. So obviously there has been a sudden change in the velocity of that drop. I can give many other simple such examples. Since the examples are too simple so I assume that readers shall understand at their own. However, I shall elaborate this point in further details in my next posts. Here, I can confidently proceed that all physical motion is only discrete. Here Zeno’s famous paradox also can be very easily solved. Zeno had argued while assuming continuous physical motion and physical existence of ‘space’. But since space has no positive existence at all and the motion of physical objects is only discrete, so logically it is possible that material objects can cover distance and so reality is not static but reality is there in variations.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | 7 Comments »

Some Points About Nature of Infinity:

Posted by khuram on May 6, 2007

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Some Points About Nature of Infinity:

Issue of the nature of infinity is quite confusing. There are theories in Mathematics, which suggest that a finite line and an infinite line, both will be having one to one, and onto correspondence between their respective points. It means that as per these theories (e.g. Georg Cantor; 1845-1918), number of points of a finite line has to be exactly equal to the number of points of an infinite line. Apparently, this theory made no proper sense to me. Actually I believe in the “discrete” nature of reality rather than considering it to be “continuous”. Soon I shall try to explain this point in my next posts. For the purpose of this post, we can just assume that reality is “discrete” and is not “continuous” in any way. Keeping in view this assumption, below I try to discuss some of the supposed characteristics of infinity:


1. The set of all positive integers (i.e. infinite) is smaller (in cardinality) than the set of real numbers between 0 and 1.

My Comments:

May be true. But I doubt in the “real” existence of real numbers. As I assume (which I shall prove later on) that reality is “discrete” and not “continuous”, so what I think is that continuous numbers can exist only in certain abstract mathematical relations but any such kind of continuity cannot exist in our Physical world. There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1.


2. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is equal (in the sense that there exists a one to one and onto mapping) to the set of real numbers between 0 and 2.

Actually this one to one and onto mapping of points is considered to be existing even between a finite line and an infinite line. It means that according to mathematics (theory of Georg Cantor; 1845-1918), the numbers of points on a finite line have its number of points exactly equal to the number of points of an infinite line.

It can be seen that this theory is older than the emergence of Quantum Physics. I no more consider this theory to be valid. A finite line must be having finite number of discrete points and an infinite line must be having infinite number of discrete points. There cannot be one to one correspondence between finite points and infinite points. Quantum Physics has even calculated the minimum possible (or absolute minimum) distance. There is no anything like perfect continuity in our physical world.

Secondly, Geometry still uses old Greek concept of point. It is defined something like an abstract point, which occupies no space. The same Geometry defines ‘line’ something like as a “combination of points”. What I think is that this pure abstract mathematics cannot be applied to the physical world. If a ‘point’ has no space at all then how any ‘line’ (i.e. combination of points) can have any space…??? I think that a combination of ‘space less’ points cannot have any length. Abstract Mathematics says that a ‘line’ has length but it does not have any width. Anyways, there is need to have a Quantum or Discrete Geometry as well.

Basic forms, and a definition of Infinity:

A line can be started from a definite point and can be considered to be extending to infinity on one direction. Such a line can be considered to be ‘infinite’ line. But remember that this ‘infinite’ line has a ‘definite’ origin. This line is infinite only on onward side but this line is not infinite on backward side.

On the other hand, there also can be a line, which can be considered to be extending infinitely towards both sides. This line is also infinite. But this line is infinite towards onward and backward sides both. So there can be one directional infinity as well as there can be two directional infinity. Similarly, there can be multiple directional infinity as well and in the same way, there can be an all-directional infinity also.

One type of infinity can be smaller or larger than other one. Meaning of infinity is Never Ending on one or more sides. A thing which can end on all sides (like a finite line), cannot have never ending points in it.

What is meaning of 1/0?

If you have to divide $100 among zero people, it only means that you are not going to disburse any sum to anyone at all. You can distribute $100 to as many (i.e. never ending) zero persons you like. 1/0 is only Abstract Mathematics. It is good only in abstractions. It cannot be as it is applied to real physical world. More precisely, 1/0 is not the case of “never ending”. Actually it is the case of “never happening”.

The following objection was raised on my above-mentioned points:


“There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1”.
You may well be right. But if I take rationals to be discrete, as I can count them through a one to one and onto mapping with the set of integers, then there are indeed infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1. So your frame of reference and mine are very different. We cannot discuss much and can only agree to disagree on our frames of references.

My response was:

I already have dealt with the issue that a smaller and a larger “line” have exact one to one correspondence between their respective number of “points”. I made diagrams to see if really there was such one to one and onto mapping of points or not.

The actual mistake in official theory lies in the definition of “point” in Geometry. Geometry considers “point” as a “space less” particular location. Since this “point” is space less, so it is having no “length” at all. The same Geometry considers “line” as a linier combination of “points”. The same Geometry also considers that a line possesses a non-zero length but it doesn’t possess any width. But if the constituents of line i.e. “points” had no length at all then how just the combination of those “points” could result in any non-zero length…???

Anyways, this definition of “point” may be right definition in pure Abstract Mathematics. But this is not right for our physical world because there can be no space less physical entity in our spatial world. A “physical point” would be having some “space”. In fact, all the “points” would be having same or uniform non-zero space. Let’s say the length of one point is 1 and the length of a finite line is 100. It means that this line has only and only 100 (discrete) points. Points of this line CANNOT have one to one and onto mapping with the points of that line whose length is 200 or infinite.

What is the mistake of official theory…???

The official theory actually draws one to one and onto mapping not between the individual points of a shorter and a longer (or infinite) line. It actually draws one to one and onto mapping between fractional parts of individual points of shorter line with the complete individual points of longer or infinite line.

Now I give you a task. Consider the “length” of a “point” to be 1. Now take two lines. First line being shorter and second line longer.

Length of first line = 100

Length of second line = 200

In this way, there are 100 “points” in first line and there are 200 “points” in second line. Now try to draw one to one and onto mapping between all the points of first line with all the points of second line. Be careful that do not take fractional or overlapping parts of individual points of shorter line!

Believe me, you will not be able to do it, because it is an impossible task. So come out of the fantasy of old Abstract Mathematics where length of “point” is zero and sum of many zeros (i.e. a “line”) is non-zero positive length. In a physical world, any real “point” will be having non-zero positive length.

This is not the case of just difference of frames of references. It is a matter of clear-cut mistake of 0 + 0 + 0 = 3

Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | 13 Comments »