איינשטיינ'ס רעלאטיוויטעט תורה

[קול דודי]

קול דודי
איר שרייבט
"Are you saying they didn't "really" change because nobody was there to see it?"
אויב די כלים פין די כעמיקאלע רעאקציעס פראסעסן נישט שנעלער וואו איקס, וויל איך דיך פרעגען וואס מיינסטו צו זאגען אז עס גייט שנעלער וואו איקס?

[left]I'm afraid I fail to see your point. Whose keilim are you talking about? Fundamental particles don't have "chemical" reactions. When two of them crash into each other, "stuff" happens whether someone is around or not. This happens all the time all around us, and the after affects are very visible to us. Now, the "type" of explosion that happens depends on their speed relative to each other. So, let me press you to answer a simple question, and please try to do so: two particles speeding towards each other with 99 percent the speed of light EACH, how much energy will be released in the explosion? Equivalent to what total speed? Remember this: there is no one around to observe it. BUT, what happens to the particles in the explosion will depend on energy level, and the after-affects will remain so that much later, when someone is born, s/he will be able to tell how much energy was released[/left]

[קול דודי]

Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sens
experience. Kant denies that either space or time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds rather that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience. Spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are, and temporal measurements are used to quantitatively compare the interval between (or duration of) events. Although space and time are held to be transcendentally ideal in this sense, they are also empirically real, i.e. not mere illusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy ... e_and_time

Yeah, Kant knew not what he was talking about when it came to physical reality. This is typical of "pure" philosophers.

[קול דודי]

In order to continue this discusion, I''ll wait for you to answer the two simple questions. The first one about what you think [left]happens when two particles speed toward each other and crash (as mentioned above), and the second one is this one that I also mentioned above:
"Re. measuring space, I like to measure space by the amount of vacuum energy it contains. What's wrong with that? Nothing to
"do with any 'speed' or other such arbitrary measures.
This should be simple to answer; please don't quote Kant at me instead of answering. Thank you. p[/left]

[may be maybe]

Spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are apart

ניצענדיג די ווערטער אלץ א פשוטע דעפינישען אויף מקום, לאמיר זיך מעמיק זיין דא. "מקום רעכענט די מרחק פין חפץ א' [פוינט א'] צו חפץ ב' [פוינט ב']".
שאלה וואו איז דער דין אויב עס נעמט בכלל נישט קיין צייט אנצוקומען פין פוינט א' צו פוינט ב' [טינק קוואנטום ענטענגעלמענט] מאכט די ווארט "פאר אפארט" סענס? מיט וואס איז עס פאר אפארט?
פליז פליז ענטפער מיר נישט אז מיר קענען אנפילען די ספעיס מיט געוויסע זאכען. ווייל איך וועל דיר פרעגן מיט וואס זענען יענע זאכען "פאר אפארט"?
יא יא די נושאים זענען קאונטער אינטויטיב. מיר גייען דאך ארויס פין אונזער געווענליכע כלים פין אנכאפען די בריאה. מיר זענען דן אויף די כלים זעלבסט.

[קול דודי]

[left]As I said, Kant knew nothing about physical reality. As I also said, I measure space by the amount of vacuum energy it contains. Now please answer both my questions, or if you cannot please admit that you cannot and I will answer them. p[/left]

[may be maybe]

[left]As to you question #1, please give me your answer. I am assuming that I will accept it in this discussion, for as mentioned above it is not related to the issue at hand. So please tell me your answer and I will probably agree to it.

As to point #2. Please use something other than an aspect of quantum physics to explain space, pulllease. Is that the best we can do? Come now.

It should be irrelevant if I don’t know precisely or at all what vacuum energy is or that maybe I don’t think it makes sense to start a whole discussion on that. Are
you saying that you cannot explain space only with this particular phenomenon?

For the joke of it I would say that you should remember that Einstein did not agree to the concept of energy-time uncertainty which I think vacuum physics is part and parcel of.

Kidding aside, are you saying that Kant didn’t know what he was talking about on the basic level of understanding the concept and definition of space? Wow!! That’s a biggie.[/left]

[קול דודי]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Philosophers are notorious for knowing nothing about physics and physical reality! p

As for an explanation of space, my point is simply this: you can choose any arbitrary explanation, dependant upon context. When you talk of the energy it contains you can measure it by that. When you talk about the time it takes to get from one side to the other, you can measure it by that. When you talk on the affect it has on other space beside it, you can measure it by that. When you talk about how it interacts with matter, you can measure it by that. However you choose to measure it, It is a fundamental property of our universe (just like fundamental matter in fact! What is matter? Hint: fundamental particles don't take up any space) and it makes no sense at all to insist that it is somehow tied with the notion of the time it takes to get from one side to another, just because you or Kant chose to define it that way.

[קול דודי]

As for my other question, it goes to the very heart of the matter. The answer clearly shows that this universal speed limit is not tied to how we perceive time and space, but is something much more fundamental than that. And that is the main point I'm trying to raise.

[may be maybe]

[left]I respectfully disagree on your opinion about philosophers.
Please just take out vacuum energy from your explanation of space. Can you do that for me? As mentioned previously, in 1905 Einstein *had* to have a different way of explaining it, right? So taking that out of the equation if you will. Is it possible to have this discussion as if we are pre quantum? Do we really need the [quantum] entanglement on top of all our other entanglements here? Let’s see if we can have a definition of space without quantum physics.
If the only way you can explain space is with quantum mechanics, are you then tacitly agreeing that in a pre-quantum world I am right?
Please give me a precise definition of space.
Don’t call this philosophy, why not call it a thought experiment here? Don’t even scientists do that? Ok, maybe only those fuddy duddy theoretical physicists like Einstein and the likes. I once read that after the great Australian expedition that corroborated Einstein’s theory, they asked Einstein what would he have said if it the expeditions results would contradict his theory. You know what he answered? “I would have said that these poor sons of b… got it all wrong. Seems that he did have some faith in his analytical thinking.
You seem to really know your stuff and probably better than me. My cutesy rejoinders are just to spice things up here. Not to denigrate you in any way.[/left]

[may be maybe]

You write,
“As for my other question, it goes to the very heart of the matter. The answer clearly shows that this universal speed limit is not tied to how we perceive time and space, but is something much more fundamental than that. And that is the main point I'm trying to raise”
Please answer your question first. I’ll then try to explain why I don’t think it matters at all.

[may be maybe]

הרב ר' קול שליט"א
השמיעיני את קולך כי קולך ערב.
די עיקר נקודה וואס איך האב געוואלט אנמערקן אין דעם גאנצען לאנגען שמועס איז אז מען דארף האבען א בעסערע אין טיעפערער באגריף אין די מושג פין מקום אין זמן כדי צו פארשטיין הגאון הגדול הרב אלבערט איינשטיין.
אין עס קען זייער צוניץ קימען די פארשטאנד אז מקום אין זמן זענען נישט בעצם הבריאה, וכמו שכתבתי לעיל "מקום און זמן [ובתוכם מהירות-ספיד] זענען אונזערע מושגים וואס מיר מיט אונזערע חושים ווארפען ארויף אויף די בריאה דערמיט צו קענען געבען עס א שטיקל סדר [עיין עמנועל קאנט ועוד ועוד] מיר וועלן דעריבער אוודאי געוויס מאכען דעם סדר מיט אונזער כעמיקאלע רעאקציעס ווייל דאס איז אלעס וואס מיר פארמאגען"

אויב בין איך מיך נישט טועה העט איך געזאגט אז א גרויסע יסוד פין אונזער וויכוח איז טאקע צו מקום אין זמן זענען אונזערע מושגים וואס מיר האבען פשוט ארויפגעווארפען אויף די בריאה אדער צו עס איז וואו די שרייבסט אויף מקום
“ It is a fundamental property of our universe”.

הפילוספים למיניהם האבען ביי דיר נישט קיין האפט, דעריבער האט נישט געהאלפען מיין ציטירין פין קאנט.

לערי פעיג אין סערעגי בין אין זייער ספר המפתח הגדול האבען מיר יעצט צוגעוויזען אט די מימרא פין הגאון בכבודו ובעצמו

[Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live. [Albert Einstein

עס קען זיין אז די האלטסט אז דעי נקודה טוישט נישט דיין מעין פוינט, איף סו פליז שעיר איט וויט מי.

[קול דודי]

די עיקר נקודה וואס איך האב געוואלט אנמערקן אין דעם גאנצען לאנגען שמועס איז אז מען דארף האבען א בעסערע אין טיעפערער באגריף אין די מושג פין מקום אין זמן כדי צו פארשטיין הגאון הגדול הרב אלבערט איינשטיין.

[left]I see. And my main point was that you actually have to know what Einstein said before trying to understand what Einstein said. See what I am saying? ps

So, one more time: If you have a particle speeding right to left at ~299,791km/p/s relative to a certain point in space, and you have another particle speeding left to right at ~299,791km/p/s relative to that same point in space, and then they collide, the energy released will be approximately the equivalent of a collision at 299,792km/p/s, and not anything close to the energy that would've been released at a collision of 599,582 km/p/s, as you would expect. (Since these speeds would naturally add, as you have when two cars speed towards each other and then collide). Now, this is true without any observer existing to witness the collision and without the particles having any e/m interactions at all. What difference does the energy make? Because 5,000 years later, when observers DO exist, we can actually tell how much energy was released in that collision and it will make a HUGE difference on how future events will evolve. ps

Now, this breaks your whole droosheh of how these effects are only a product of our minds, of how we relate time and space.[/left]

[may be maybe]

[left]You might’ve misunderstood me. I have repeated numerous times that I will accept your answer to your question. For the sake of less confusion I asked that you actually answer it and I will accept your answer

When you started explaining why this question “goes to the very heart of the matter”, I asked you to first give me your answer to this question [and as promised, I will accept it for the sake of this discussion] and then I will be able to explain why I think it is not relevant to what I’m trying to say here

I think you misinterpreted when I wrote “Please answer your question first. I’ll then try to explain why I don’t think it matters at all.” Otherwise I don’t know why you seemingly got upset with me and stopped the dialogue

In any event, you answered it now. So with no further ado I hereby accept your answer to your question

Now can you answer my question? Please give me a definition of space/distance without resorting to; a) specialized scientific concepts, b) other spatial entities or concepts

The reason for A is to avoid more confusion and also, very importantly, because I hardly know these very specialized scientific terms
The reason for B is that if we are talking about a definition of a concept, say space, we can’t use that very concept as part of the explanation, duh

Spalungen: definition something which encapsulates many spaplungens. Hmm…. But what are these other spalungens? Oh, they interact and affect yet other spalungens. But what in heavens name is a spalungen????? n

I would like to press the reset button and have a respectful dialogue. If you feel that it’s a total waste because I really don’t know what I’m talking about, I can accept that too. We can still part as friends by you telling it to me decently. After all that is what “may be maybe” is all about[/left]

[קול דודי]

[left]Now can you answer my question? Please give me a definition of space/distance without resorting to; a) specialized scientific concepts, b) other spatial entities or concepts[/left]

[left]Okay, you have to be crystal clear about what your question is. Is your question how to measure space? I believe I've answered your question above. But now it seems your answer is how to explain it without resorting to other concepts. And the answer to that is quite simple: you can't do it (without resorting to circular definitions). Exactly because it's a fundamental property of our universe. ps

It's exactly the same with all other fundamental properties. What is a fundamental particle? It's the thing that other stuff is made of. What is "stuff"? It's the things that are made of fundamental particles. What is energy? It is the thing that you need in order to do work. What is "work"? It is the thing that takes energy to do. What is a force (such as gravity and eletromagnetism)? It is the thing that, when multiplied with time, changes energy. What is time? It is the thing that, when multiplied with force, changes energy. Wat is energy? It is the thing that is changed with force*time. And so on and so on.

Now, I can in fact put all these in mathematical formulas that will explain beautifully how they behave under all circumstances and will also explain how to measure them (by observing said behaviour under different circumstances), but I can't actually explain what these things are in terms of other things. Exactly BECAUSE these are fundemental properties. And this applies not only to space, as I've noted, but to all other fundemental properties as well.[/left]

[קול דודי]

To be even more clear, I'm trying to point out the difference between *measuring* and talking about its *effects*, and explaining what the thing-in-itself (there, I threw that nonsensical term in especially for Kant fans ) *is*. I want you to be clear about what exactly you are asking about.

[may be maybe]

[left]

But now it seems your answer is how to explain it without resorting to other concepts

Correction: without resorting to spatial entities and/or spatial concepts. For then it is a circular definition. Sure you can use other simple concepts. . .Everything, not only fundamental properties, are explained by other concepts, for without that it is always circular[/left]

[may be maybe]

[left]

(there, I threw that nonsensical term in especially for Kant fans )

Kant couldn't agree with you more. That's his whole point. The thing in itself is outside our senses, it is nonsensical n[/left]

[may be maybe]

[left]

But now it seems your answer is how to explain it without resorting to other concepts. And the answer to that is quite simple: you can't do it

So you can't explain it without using other concepts. Ok agreed

but I can't actually explain what these things are in terms of other things

So you also can't explain it in terms of other things or concepts? Or is this a typo? n[/left]

[may be maybe]

To be even more clear, I'm trying to point out the difference between *measuring* and talking about its *effects*, and explaining what the thing-in-itself (there, I threw that nonsensical term in especially for Kant fans ) *is*. I want you to be clear about what exactly you are asking about.

[left]I would rather not limit myself to any of the specific terms you gave me to choose from. For the simple reason that it might then be (mistakenly) construed that all we are talking about is that term

What I'm trying to say is that if i would answer you that I'm looking for the "effects", you will then give me the effects and be done with it. You wouldn't see it as the definition of the concept at hand. I therefore ask you to give the definition of it in the way you believe it should be defined. n

I would suggest you utilize Occam's razor, namely if space could exist as a concept without, say "vacuum energy" then it shouldn't be defined by it. Space, then, in its most elemental understanding[/left]

[קול דודי]

What I meant was, it cannot be described in a non-circular way, similar to other fundemental properties which can also not be described in a non-circular way. However, you *can* describe its effects and behavior under a variety of conditions. But I fail to see the point of this discussion. You said originally that the theory of relativity and the fundental "speed limit" is fundamentally tied to how we perceive events and the speed of our chemical
reactions. I pointed out that if you know what the theory of relativity actually says, this theory
of yours is plainly false, as I pointed out above with two speeding particles. So no matter your philosophy, this "speed limit" is not tied to our perception or to the speed of chemical reactions. It is much more fundemental then that.

Beyond that, I really have no interest in discussing philosophy as divorced from reality with no regard to how physical reality actually works. If I wanted that I'd rather discuss kabooleh instead.

[קול דודי]

Note also (as you see from the speeding particles) that speed is indeed "real", exactly as "real" as the existence of particles itself! Would you say that its existence is also dependent on an observer? Your claim that since speed is relative means that it's subjective and not objective, betrays a deep misunderstanding of what relativity means. This too I've tried to explain first by the muon experiment, and then i simplified it to the speeding particle case. So your philosophy which staryed the diacusion doesn't work when you take into account how things work (as is usually the case with pure philosophy). That's all I've tried to point out, and I hope you've learned something about relativity in the process. m

[יידל]

Beyond that, I really have no interest in discussing philosophy as divorced from reality with no regard to how physical reality actually works. If I wanted that I'd rather discuss kabooleh instead.

קבלה ענדערש ווי פילאזאפיע?!

[קול דודי]

זיכער, יודל! ענדערש ווי דעי פיליזאפיע מיט וואס עס קוקט אויס ״אפשר״ איז אנטציקט. פארשטייט זיך אז ס׳איז דא אינטערעסאנטע פיליזאפיע וואס קימערט זיך יא מיט וויאזוי זאכן ארבעטן אין דע ריעל ווארלד. אויך קאנט האט אפאר אזעלכע שטיקלעך, שוין אפגערעדט פון ראסעל און הום, און אפשר אויך צומאל דער רבי ר׳ ברוכ׳ל (שפינאזא).