by Robert Lanza
APPENDIX 2
EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY AND BIOCENTRISM
The “space” that plays one of central roles in Einstein’s relativity can be easily derived scientifically to be replaced as a standalone entity, leaving the practical conclusions of relativity intact and still functioning. What follows is a physics-based explanation for this, with most math eliminated. Nonetheless, it is rather dry, and we recommend it mainly for occasions when unexpectedly stuck in a bus terminal for more than two or three hours.
If we supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the relative positions of practically rigid bodies. (Relativity)
One may find fault with this definition of space. From a practical standpoint, this founds the common conception of space on an unphysical idealization: the perfectly rigid body. The fact that one specifies practically rigid bodies does not protect one’s theory from the consequences of this idealization. To Einstein, space is something you measure with physical objects, and his objective mathematical definition of space relies on perfectly rigid measuring rods.
One might claim that these rods can be made arbitrarily small (the smaller, the more rigid), but we now know that sufficiently microscopic measuring rods become less rigid, not more. The idea of measuring space by lining up individual atoms or electrons is absurd. The best distance measurement that Einstein’s construction of special relativity can hope to achieve is a consistent statistical average. Even this ideal is compromised by the theory itself, however, which recognizes that these measurements depend on the relative state of motion between the observer and the bodies being measured.
From a philosophical standpoint, Einstein follows a grand tradition of physicists by assuming that his own sensory phenomena correspond to an objective external reality. However, the concept of objective mathematically idealized space has outlived its usefulness. We propose that space is more appropriately described as an emergent property of external reality, one that is fundamentally dependent on consciousness.
As a first step to this goal, let us consider the theory of special relativity in detail and ask whether it can be constructed sensibly without relying on rigid measuring rods or even physical bodies. Let’s look at Einstein’s two assumptions: 1. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.
2. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial motion.
The concept of speed, which implies objective space, is integral to both assumptions. It is hard to get away from this idea because one of the simplest and easiest things we can measure about the objects of our experience is their spatial characteristics. If we abandon the a priori assumption of objective space, however, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with only two things: time and substance. If we turn inward to examine the content of our consciousness, we see that space is not a necessary part of the equation. It is meaningless to claim that our consciousness has any physical extent of its own. We know that our state of consciousness changes (otherwise, thought would not be fleeting), so it makes sense to propose the appearance of time, because change is what we normally construe as time.
From a physical standpoint, the substance of consciousness must be the same as the substance of external reality, which is to say the grand unified field and its various low-energy incarnations. One of these incarnations is the vacuum field, because truly “empty space” has now been relegated to the compost heap of science history.
In addition, we may propose the existence of light or, more generally speaking, a persistent, self-propagating change in the grand unified field. From this point forward, to simplify the language of this discussion, we’ll simply refer to the grand unified field as field. The term light should be taken to include all massless, self-propagating disturbances of this field.
Einstein spoke of light and space. We may start with light and time with equal validity; the first proposition, after all, is simply a statement that space and time are related to each other through a fundamental constant of nature, the speed of light. Thus, if we propose the existence of a field and light propagating through the field, we can recover a definition of space that does not depend in any way on physical, rigid rods. Einstein uses this definition himself frequently in his work: distance = (cΔt/2)
where t is the time required for a light pulse emitted by the observer to reflect off an object and return to the observer. In this case, c is just a fundamental property of the field that must eventually be measured; it need not be given any physical units as yet. Rather, we rely on the idea that the field has a constant property related to the propagation of light that introduces a delay in the propagation of light from one part of the field to another. Distance is thus defined simply as a linear function of the delay.
This definition is only practical, of course, if the observer and the object are not in relative motion. Fortunately, the state of rest can be defined easily enough by insisting that a sequence of distance measurements by this method be statistically constant. If we presume a configuration of the field with at least one observer and several objects (which are also composed of field, naturally), then the observer may define a spatial coordinate system as follows: 1. Using a long sequence of reflected light signals, identify those objects whose distance is not changing over time.
2. If the same distance measurement is shared by one or more distinct objects, then the concept of direction may also be defined. Given a sufficient number of objects, it can be determined that there are three independent (macroscopic) directions.
3. A conscious observer can form a model of the field by proposing a three-dimensional coordinate system of distances.
So we see that Einstein’s first postulate may be sensibly replaced by the following statements: 1. The fundamental field of nature has the property that light requires a finite time to propagate between one part of the field and another.
2. When this delay is constant over time, the two parts of the field are said to be at rest with respect to each other and the distance between them may be defined as ct/2, where c is a fundamental property of the field that will eventually be measured by other means (such as its relationship to other fundamental constants of nature).
Note that this construction of distance does not require any a priori assumption of space. We merely assume the existence of field and that certain parts of it may be distinct from other parts. In other words, we assume the existence of multiple entities in (and of) the field that may communicate by means of light (which is also a property of the field).
The second cornerstone of special relativity is the idea of inertial motion. Now that the concepts of spatial coordinates and velocities have been deduced from the assumptions of field and light, it is straightforward to define inertial motion as a property of the relationship between two entities (the observer and some external object). An object is in inertial motion with respect to an observer if its time delay is a linear function of time, that is: distance = (cΔt)/2 = vt
We are discussing two different measures of time here: the distance is defined by the time delay Δt, while t is the total time elapsed since beginning the measurement process. It is interesting to note that the distance d and speed v of an object can only be properly defined by a series of discrete measurements of time delay.
The demand that the laws of physics be identical for all inertial observers is equivalent to the requirement that the field be Lorentz invariant. There are a number of ways of expressing this, but the simplest is to define the space-time interval Δs: Δs2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2
The deltas are somewhat pedantic because every observer naturally defines his or her own position as zero under this system.
The invariance of Δs may be thought of as the de
mand that multiple observers agree on the properties of the field and external reality. To complete special relativity, it suffices to show that two observers can agree on Δs regardless of their relationship, provided that each is in inertial motion with respect to the other.
From this point, all the well-known results of special relativity follow. The end result is that we have shown that special relativity does not require the concept of rigid, objective space to function; if we start with the presumption of a unified field, then it is enough to propose that disturbances in the field provide a self-consistent relationship between its various parts.
It may seem a pointless exercise to take space out of the postulates in this manner; after all, distance is a very intuitive concept while quantum fields are not. Consciousness clearly has a natural tendency to interpret the relationships between itself and other entities in terms of space, and no one can argue against the practical advantages of this construction. However, as indicated in the introduction, the mathematical abstraction of space has been falling short in modern theories. In the effort to force general relativity and quantum field theory together, space has been multiplying and compacting, quantizing and even disintegrating altogether. Empty space, once considered a triumph of experimental science (and ironically, one of the great results supporting special relativity), now looks like a misconception unique to twentieth-century science.
Appendix 1 Footnote:
The question may arise as to the dynamic mechanism of compensatory phenomena. Looking at the structure of matter, we know that electrons orbit atomic nuclei thousands of trillions of times per second, and that nuclear particles spin about billions of trillions of times per second within the nucleus. We also now know that the nuclear particles themselves are made up of smaller particles called quarks. To date, physicists have peeled through five levels of matter—the molecular, atomic, nuclear, hadronic, and quark level. And although there are some scientists who think that the series may stop here, it is just conceivable that as the particles get smaller and smaller, and spin more rapidly, matter dissolves away into the motion of energy. In fact, evidence suggests that there may be structure within quarks themselves—structure that had, until now, been presumed not to exist.
Poincaré hinted that the explanation may be contained in the dynamics of this structure. The odd effects of motion on measuring rods and clocks follows logically from the fact that matter consists of energy moving about in a multiplicity of configurations, particles orbiting within particles; and because energy is invariable in its velocity (that is, light velocity), such composite structures cannot change their speed without changes first occurring in the object’s internal configuration. Poincaré and Lorentz were right: measuring bodies and clocks are not rigid. They really do contract, and the amount of this contraction must increase with the rate of motion.
Consider an object accelerated to the speed of light. We see at once that it can only reach this speed if its internal energy travels along a straight line. Mechanically this is achieved by foreshortening, for the more an object shortens, the lesser the fraction of motion “tied up” in internal movements along the axis of the object’s motion. Hence, at the speed of light, the components of a clock cannot be viewed as moving with respect to one another. A clock cannot engage in the dance of timekeeping. Timekeeping must stop. The construction of a simple right-angled triangle, plus an equally simple use of Pythagoras bears this out: if there were any movements within the clock, its components will have traveled through space faster than the speed of light. It also follows that mass varies in proportion to the foreshortening fraction, for as Lorentz has shown, the mass of such a particle such as an electron is inversely proportional to its radius (or volume variation). Indeed, all of these changes can with but little difficulty—using high-school level mathematics—be shown to vary in accordance with the equations of Lorentz and Poincaré, the equations that embodied in the whole theory of special relativity.
Thus, space and time can be easily restored to their place as forms of animal-sense perception. They belong to us, not to the physical world. “If,” wrote Emerson, “we measure our individual forces against hers [Nature’s], we may easily feel as if we were the sport of an insuperable destiny. But if, instead of identifying ourselves with the work, we feel that the soul of the workman streams through us, we shall find the peace of the morning dwelling first in our hearts, and the fathomless powers of gravity and chemistry, and, over them, of life, pre-existing within us in their highest form.”
INDEX
A
Advaita Vedānta
Alpha, as constant
Anthropic principle
Aristotle
B
Bacon, Francis
Baryon
Bell, John
Bell’s theorem
Berkeley, George
Big Bang
Biocentrism
1st principle of
2nd principle of
3rd principle of
4th principle of
5th principle of
6th principle of
7th principle of
And the cosmos
And eastern religions
And fundamental questions
And space
Future tests of
Logical limits of
Biswas, Tarun
Born, Max
C
Cambrian sea
Carbon
Casimir effect
Chalmers, David
Complementarity
Consciousness
Constants, table of
Copenhagen interpretation (of quantum theory)
D
Dark energy
Dark matter
Darwin, Charles
Decartes, René
Dennett, Daniel
Dicke, Robert
Dimensions
DNA
Double-slit experiment: see two-slit experiment
E
Einstein, Albert
And EPR correlations
And free will
And locality
And quantum theory
And relativity
And space-time
Eiseley, Loren
Electricity
Electromagnetic energy
Emerson, Ralph Waldo
Entropy
EPR correlations
Extra dimensions
F
Feynmann, Richard
Field and Stream magazine
Filippenko, Alex
Four forces, the
G
Gisin, Nicholas
God
Goldilocks principle
Grand Unified Theory (also Theory of Everything)
Gravitational force
Gravity
H
Haldane, John
Harvard University
Hawking, Stephen
Heisenberg, Werner
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
Heraclitus
Herschel, William
Hoffman, Paul
Hoyle, Fred
Hubble, Edwin
Hume, David
I
Inflation
Intelligent design
Interference pattern
K
KHCO3
Kuffler, Stephen
L
Lampyris Noctiluca
Language
Limitations of
Leslie, John
Libet, Benjamin
Light
And color
Behavior of in double-slit experiment
Perception of
Polarized
Nature of
Speed of
Linde, Andrei
Locality
Lorentz, Hendrik
Lorentz Transformation
Luria, Salvador
M
Magnetism
Many worlds interpretation (MWI)
Mars
>
Michelson, Albert
MIT
Morley, Edward
Muybridge, Eadweard
N
NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology)
Newton, Isaac
New York Times Magazine
O
O’Donnell, Barbara
O’Donnell, Eugene
P
Parker, Dennis
Poe, Edgar Allan
Pope, Alexander
Probability laws
Probability state
Probability waves
Q
Quantum fluctuation
Quantum mechanics: see Quantum theory
Quantum physics: see Quantum theory
Quantum theory
And biocentrism
And complementarity
And technology
As inexplicable
Copenhagen interpretation of
Future of
Many worlds interpretation of
Quarter wave plates
R
Rainbows
Resonance
Roemer, Ole
S
Sagan, Carl
