A Paradox of Special Relativity

[Reiku]

Special Relativity is a known observer-dependant relativistic theory. It relates distance and time as relativistically co-dependant with a conscious observer.

Wiki says, on Special Relativity…

‘’Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after considerable contributions of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1]’’

This subtly hints at the observer-dependant mechanism of special relativity, ‘’ physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference ‘’. In the appearance of this fact, physicists became wise that a theory of everything, if it required Special Relativity, would require some reflection on incorporating an observer-dependant theory.

• Anyway, in further reading their essay, I came to the point they said, ‘’ Time dilation – the time lapse between two events is not invariant from one observer to another, but is dependent on the relative speeds of the observers' reference frames (e.g., the twin paradox which concerns a twin who flies off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and returns to discover that his or her twin sibling has aged much more). ‘’

Is what I wanted to talk about, because something seems to be taken for granted here, and that is to assume that an observer would even measure a time difference at all, despite the speed they moved at. In other words, even if the clock on the wall slowed down, how are we to know consciousness slows also? It just seems to be taken for granted that we wouldn't actually feel time passing as normally from a subliminal point of view.

But instead the general view, is that the observer is part of this flux in time, but I stress, how do we know the observer actually feels any difference at all, and still has to have a sense of time passing at the same speed, even if they did age less considerably?

I guess this is what is meant by relativity being incomplete in many area’s. Not only does it ignore the Uncertainty Principle, but it also takes for granted that consciousness follows the same relativistic rules, despite overwhelming evidence that consciousness doesn’t really exist in space or time.

Hence, just after, Wiki continues to report:

• ‘’Relativity of simultaneity – two events happening in two different locations that occur simultaneously to one observer, may occur at different times to another observer (lack of absolute simultaneity). ‘’
And hence, I think there is a paradox in the Relativity of Simultaneity and the concepts involving a non-mechanism that explains how consciousness is interconnected with the flux itself. To simplify, two events may not happen to occur at the same time for two observers, but there is no evidence to suggest the two observers wouldn’t feel an asymptotic time frame, where we all feel the same time passing, no matter what is happening around us, or from our frame of reference.

I base this as something that should be obvious to question, since we have been able to achieve speeds where we can fully experiment how consciousness reflects on how time passes, since we haven’t moved any incredible speed ever. Not only is this an inconsistency, but it remains a paradox, because now, both observers can feel the same time pass, but the times recorded in truth, have actually differed greatly. So it challenges the notions of ‘’Special Relativity Not Having A Mechanism,’’ to explain why we should simply accept time in the end, is never experienced passing at the same rate, instead of saying that the observer notices a time difference.

 

[Reiku]

I want to add, that this is akin to the displeasure for years in the Copenhagen Interpretation which had no mechanism to why large objects did not experience quantum-like effects, and it only said , ''it was too big.''

It's the same with this. Relativity just assume that consciousness experiences relativistic effects, without any mechanism.

 

[Pete]

Hi Reiku,
Time dilation in SR refers to all measurements of time. It is expected that this includes human perception of the passage of time.

So if you were to fly from Earth to Alpha Centauri at a gamma factor of 1500, we expect that it would feel to you like a single day went by during the journey, although it would seem to us that it took you four years.

 

[Reiku]

Hi Pete,

Exactly. As you said, ''It is expected that this includes human perception,'' but yet this expectation is somehow expected simply without any mechanism.

It also goes against the overwhelming evidence that consciousness itself, is free not only from quantum mechanical actions, but it seems itself does not exist in space or time.

I am really disturbed by it, because these rules are biased that something like consciousness has anything or any correlation whatsoever with actual relativistic effects.

 

[Reiku]

We have come to except the strange phenomena of time dilation to be something that can be experienced. But there is equally the strange phenomena that consciousness could still feel an absolute asymptotic time, because

1) We haven't tested this to measurable degrees concerning consciousness,

and

2) There is no given mechanism to why it shouldn't have an asymptotic time frame for all observers

 

[andbna]

Astronauts in orbit experiance a degree of time dilation (relative to terestrial observers,) yet they do not feel it. Hence, conciousness obays reletivistic laws.
As for your mechanism; did the brain ever come to mind? (no puns intended.)

-Andrew

 

[Janus58]

Time dilation is not "experienced" by the consciousness nor anything else. It is "measured" to occur to objects with relative motion to the frame from which the measurement is made.

The whole "does consciousness follow the laws of relativity?" question is a red herring.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It also goes against the overwhelming evidence that consciousness itself, is free not only from quantum mechanical actions, but it seems itself does not exist in space or time.

So much evidence that hardly anyone believes it's viable... :shrug:

I am really disturbed by it, because these rules are biased that something like consciousness has anything or any correlation whatsoever with actual relativistic effects.

And we feel disturbed you can post about relativity and quantum mechanics with no knowledge of either and with your only sources as Wikipedia.

But there is equally the strange phenomena that consciousness could still feel an absolute asymptotic time

Define, carefully and precisely, what 'an absolute asymptotic time' is.

 

[Read-Only]

Just more of the usual Reiku tripe! <shaking my head sadly> The poor lad doesn't have a fully functioning neuron in his head.

Attempting to inject "consciousness" into things he has no understanding of. Next, he'll be trying to inject it into a chicken that has been roasting on a spit for over an hour... :bugeye:

 

[funkstar]

Exactly. As you said, ''It is expected that this includes human perception,'' but yet this expectation is somehow expected simply without any mechanism.

No, the mechanism is fully explained: The physical laws are invariant under the Lorentz transform, so the chemical processes in your brain that leads you to experience time (and indeed, everything else) are also slowed down.

It also goes against the overwhelming evidence that consciousness itself, is free not only from quantum mechanical actions, but it seems itself does not exist in space or time.

Except no such evidence exists, and the idea is pure mysticism.

 

[Reiku]

Ah so all of a sudden, relativity effects the chemistry, and therego effects consciousness. I'd like to see the equations that describe this.

 

[Reiku]

I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it's incomplete because obviously there are no explainable mechanisms here.

 

[Reiku]

Just more of the usual Reiku tripe! <shaking my head sadly> The poor lad doesn't have a fully functioning neuron in his head.

Attempting to inject "consciousness" into things he has no understanding of. Next, he'll be trying to inject it into a chicken that has been roasting on a spit for over an hour... :bugeye:

Ben...


Do you pick and chose what you moderate, or are there actually standards here in which you stop insults and flaming?

 

[Reiku]

And Alphanumeric... i have no idea what you are saying. So why even bother. I asked you not long ago to explain some actions you had taken, but failed to answer them, so don't expect me to listen or entertain you. (Apart from that, that is)>

 

[Reiku]

Astronauts in orbit experiance a degree of time dilation (relative to terestrial observers,) yet they do not feel it. Hence, conciousness obays reletivistic laws.
As for your mechanism; did the brain ever come to mind? (no puns intended.)

-Andrew

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

They experience a time passing that would seem abnormal, but to them, they do in effect experience time pass as normally, see the difference?

 

[andbna]

Ah so all of a sudden, relativity effects the chemistry, and therego effects consciousness. I'd like to see the equations that describe this.

Chemical reactions require time. t=t'gamma. Solve from there.

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

They experience a time passing that would seem abnormal, but to them, they do in effect experience time pass as normally, see the difference?

I see that that proves that relativity does infact effect brain chemistry. If it did not:
1. We would have to assume the earth was the center of the universe (at least for our brains.)
2. Astronaughts undergoing time dilation according to terrestrial observers, would feel like thier body was reacting sluggishly: in essence, thier brain would still be stuck in earth's 'non-dialated' frame while thier body suffered the dilation.
Utterly rediculous.

-Andrew

 

[Reiku]

Right...

... now in response to that, i have to cite Dr Fred Alan Wolf in concerning consciousness and the mass of the brain. He makes it quite clear in his book, ''Mind into Matter,'' that despite the overwhelming evidence, there has been no proof whatsoever that the mind is somehow tied to the matter it inhabits.

He is actually correct here, and cannot be argued with.

So... i will say, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that relativity may be correct concerning consciousness, but there is no proof, even mathematically, even when reducing it to chemicles, because then we are essentially applying a subliminal speed of consciousness with the speed of things external of the observer, and so far, there are no equations to suggest a flux in either change either.

What i find ridiculous, is that how we assume a mechanism without a true mechanism without any doubt. I agree with premise one, but i am not so appliant with premise two. Premise one hits on an absolute asymptotic time reference frame for experience for more than one observer.

(By the way, just for reference, asymptotic time frames are not new, as in the sense i created the notion)

 

[Reiku]

andbna

''Chemical reactions require time. t=t'gamma. Solve from there.''

You make it sound more simpler than what it is. There are no mathematical equations that describes how we ultimately sense time pass, in relation to the physical processes behind the equations of t=t'gamma. This is how it is incomplete i state. And essentially, just for the sake of repeating myself, i don't claim relativity is wrong, but we cannot be sure it is right, until this thing is given a true mechanism, where when dealing with something ethereal like consciousness, in relation to the mind-body paradox.

 

[Vkothii]

Reiku (et al. 'coff'):

If you think about how we've discovered, gradually, that the world behaves in regular and predictable ways, and some fairly deep stuff about "why" it behaves like it does - is it really all that surprising that we see it that way, since we are "that way" too?
By which I mean, we're constructed according to those same regular and "predictable" things the rest of it is, so the fact we see it like we do, or we see "differences", but we learn that (some of them) are actually the "same", or part of a symmetry of some kind, has a relationship.

So there's a reflection in the way we're equipped to understand things, with how everything in fact "is", if you see where I'm going. Not all that big a surprise in that, really.

 

[Reiku]

Sorry. I was away for a couple of hours there, but i might have been seen floating about here doing nothing. (I forgot to get off the net )

Anyway, V,

I like the initiation of physics and mathematics, but not when the math cannot explain a mechanism, even if we are told to take it for granted. I think for this reason, it's not a pesudoscientific question, but rather quite a serious proposal in which we need to incorporate experimental evidence when in contrast to the nature of consciousness itself.

Does the external world have a speed? Can it have a speeds where things ''flow'' by us... The answer is of course, no. Physicists have been able to explain time without a conscious observer, and have found everything is like shattered peices of glass, tiny frames of existence where the ''flow'' is now considered a frozen lake.

With mind, time certainly doesn't feel like this. Instead, we have a pyshcological arrow which seems smooth and discontinuous, next to the nature proposed above without a mind. This means, that even though the mind tunes into reality, does not necesserily mean in ALL CASES, mind has been shown it is reality, or in fact, if it can at times even follow its rules. All we know, is that these statistical averages (particles) give something not quite average at all.

(Just an insert* Ben, i just want to explain why these things came to mind. I used wiki as a reference, because it's something we are all familiar with to some degree.)

** The thing that got this question going for me, was, if the subliminal mind experience of time let's call it $$t$$ must always abide by the flux of external time, let's call it $$T$$, then mathematics NATURALLY ASSUMES in light of physics, that this must mean:

$$t=T$$

But it questions how exactly the equation can even be right, ''a sudden flux out there, subjects a difference in here,'' because we can clearly know that a flux in here does certainly not change a time out there. Why? The answer is simple. It's because our brains are not uniform instruments of spacetime in syncronized time frames.

So we need to ask, exactly, where the mechanism is that allows relativity to state there is no absolute asysmptotic time frame. It wouldn't necesserily go against relativity, but it remains a paradox to why such an event could occur. If it even does.